Guild icon
Official Helium Community
⸺ HIP-Archive ⸺ / hip-25-validators
HIP: https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/master/0025-validators.md Public Comments: https://github.com/helium/HIP/issues/111 Please refer to the open questions as a way to guide the discussion. Specifically we're interested in understanding the community's perspective on overstake and how that should be rewarded. The best arguments here are made with simulated data.
Avatar
Do we want to limit (at least initially) the number of nodes in order to put a floor under earnings? We could link this to the on-chain oracle price, potentially.
I would argue that a limit is not necessary. I consider that a part of the 'risk' for my HNT when running a validator node. Presumably if my validator ends up absolutely draining the bank, I can shut it down and expect to see my HNT returned after the unstake_validator cooldown.
14:41
Also, "We don't recommend running these machines on consumer network connections." -- I almost guarantee people will do this anyway.
14:41
Also, also: very excited for this HIP
Avatar
Avatar
Joey
Also, "We don't recommend running these machines on consumer network connections." -- I almost guarantee people will do this anyway.
given the expulsion rules that we have already this probably wouldn't be the most profitable thing to do
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Joey
Also, "We don't recommend running these machines on consumer network connections." -- I almost guarantee people will do this anyway.
You may be right. Decided not to also add on slashing in this HIP but that's something that we can consider if the expulsion rules don't already force people in the right direction.
Avatar
Solid. Sounds like it's a considered vector. I look forward to doing a more thorough read this evening.
Avatar
Is this essentially Consensus Group including how elections occur and number of participants in the group but moved to dedicated systems? Meaning instead of 14,000+ machines with potential to make 13 HNT per hotspot, this moves to 100+ validators instead?
Avatar
where did you get 13 HNT?
Avatar
It’s the consensus payout per hotspot today
Avatar
recall that that number scales with the total number of hotspots
15:02
so at 28k, it's going to be 6
Avatar
205/16 currently
15:03
not precisely true
15:03
you'll just get selected half as often
Avatar
panagos-o-enas 01/11/2021 3:03 PM
Where do we sign up?
Avatar
then a quarter as often
15:03
etc etc
Avatar
No i mean specifically when selected not the randomness
Avatar
the randomness is the key to the payout
Avatar
205 HNT per epoch goes to consensus
Avatar
yes, that will move to the validator pool
👍 1
Avatar
with a 16 member group it would always be 13 HNT, but yea, the probability of getting into the group will fall over time. and 16 members is really not what you want in terms of security, as the HIP mentions
👍 2
Avatar
Agreed. Just didn’t see mention of consensus in the HIP so wanted to make sure I am understanding it correctly
Avatar
@panagos-o-enas to run one?
15:05
@Radrob consensus -> block production in the hip
👍 1
Avatar
panagos-o-enas 01/11/2021 3:05 PM
@evan yeap
Avatar
I had a glossary section, but it got removed for other reasons
Avatar
Thanks!
Avatar
once we've worked out a few things, we'll look towards standing up a testnet of validators as soon as we can manage
👍 3
Avatar
panagos-o-enas 01/11/2021 3:06 PM
Greece is here with you guys :)
Avatar
then people can get some experience with it, we'll file off the rough edges, and hopefully move to launch fairly quickly, assuming community consent
👍 3
15:09
currently working on some supporting arguments around the overstaking stuff
Avatar
this exciting really 🙂 any eta for test net ?
Avatar
not ATM
Avatar
oh ok
Avatar
soon? I don't know. there are a lot of moving parts
15:12
once we have approval, I'll make a lot of tracking issues on our github repos
15:13
there will also be a project board that people can track
Avatar
georgica — SyncroBit 01/11/2021 3:23 PM
This is a very much needed improvement for the network's health and growth! Awesome work @evan
Avatar
Deleted User 01/11/2021 3:24 PM
How long's the cooldown period?
Avatar
5 month
Avatar
Deleted User 01/11/2021 3:25 PM
Oh, hehe. I'm an idiot
Avatar
thanks @georgica — SyncroBit, it was a team effort, I'm just the collator and point of contact
15:27
All of those chain variables are things that the community could fruitfully discuss
15:27
ideally with numbers and examples 🙂
Avatar
Deleted User 01/11/2021 3:27 PM
Is there a bonding period?
Avatar
@Deleted User do you mean a warmup period?
15:28
(that's the term I've heard used here)
15:28
otherwise, I need a definition
Avatar
that 10k hnt is very large amount for small fish like me 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
KryptoKedi
that 10k hnt is very large amount for small fish like me 🙂
you could pool together with some others
Avatar
ah yep
15:30
So how you gonna choose the first 100 validators ?
Avatar
Deleted User 01/11/2021 3:30 PM
I figured the cooldown period is for validators. Once HNT holders have selected a validator, is there an period of time from when they unstake to when their tokens are free? Some Cryptos like Cosmos have that.
Avatar
Avatar
KryptoKedi
So how you gonna choose the first 100 validators ?
it would just be random selection from the pool of stakers, i think?
Avatar
Deleted User 01/11/2021 3:30 PM
Also, this is so exciting. I'm so proud of the team. 😍
💯 2
Avatar
Avatar
KryptoKedi
So how you gonna choose the first 100 validators ?
there will be a period when anyone can stake, once we have more than 100 running, we'll turn it on and the group will transition
Avatar
oki
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
Also, this is so exciting. I'm so proud of the team. 😍
i think this is an awesome development. but im ready for bUt tHe rICh gEt RicHeR
🤣 1
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
I figured the cooldown period is for validators. Once HNT holders have selected a validator, is there an period of time from when they unstake to when their tokens are free? Some Cryptos like Cosmos have that.
The stake will need to be active the entire time a validator is eligible for the group
Avatar
this is great, looking forward to helping w/ the testnet and participating.
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
i think this is an awesome development. but im ready for bUt tHe rICh gEt RicHeR
Deleted User 01/11/2021 3:33 PM
Hahahaha, well. They need to show us a place where it sucks to be an early adopter around these neck of the woods.
Avatar
we might get some hnt wile it is cheap 😄
Avatar
hopefully the motivation section of the HIP explains the current problems well enough
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
hopefully the motivation section of the HIP explains the current problems well enough
georgica — SyncroBit 01/11/2021 3:35 PM
you just have to look at how the block times spike 😂
Avatar
well i saw the reaction to hip23, and it was mostly about how people liked the CG earnings, and less about the negative effect on the network
Avatar
Original message was deleted or could not be loaded.
yes, the vast majority of HNT earned still goes to Hotspots. this only affects 6% of the rewards pool
Avatar
thats brilliant
Avatar
"Eventually a mechanism will be added to delegate Hotspots credibility to Validators which will also influence elections." Can you explain a bit more about this idea? I don't understand what "delegate Hotspots credibility" means. (edited)
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/11/2021 3:50 PM
Just seeing this now but what happened to the HIP on GH? I see the merge but don't see it on the main HIP page
Avatar
I see it there
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/11/2021 3:51 PM
Can you link pls
15:51
On mobile
Avatar
Helium Improvement Proposals. Contribute to helium/HIP development by creating an account on GitHub.
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/11/2021 3:52 PM
Thanks
Avatar
@pj eventually something vaguely like score but better will return, and highly credible hotspots will be able to lend their support to validators somehow
15:52
quite speculative at the moment
👍 1
Avatar
So basically a Validator that contributes in ways other than just running the node (supporting the community through opensource tools, marketing, etc) could solicit influential proven hotspot owners for powerups (edited)
Avatar
yeah. it's something that we'll need to explore as things evolve.
👍 1
15:57
another example is that a validator that accepts HNT for overstaking
15:58
if someone was doing that, I could give them HNT and then say that my credible spot supports them to increase my returns
15:58
there are a lots of ways one could do it
👍 1
Avatar
georgica — SyncroBit 01/11/2021 4:02 PM
imma do jamies job a bit here
16:02
Helium Improvement Proposals. Contribute to helium/HIP development by creating an account on GitHub.
Author(s): @evanmcc, @helium/engineering Initial PR: #110 Start Date: 2021-01-11 Category: Technical, Economic Rendered view: https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/master/0025-validators.md Summary: A...
🙌 2
🙏 1
georgica — SyncroBit pinned a message to this channel. 01/11/2021 4:02 PM
Avatar
Oh sign me up.
16:07
I have hnt ready to stake
16:14
I have a 16 core 32 thread monster with commercial internet ready to contribute to this 🙂
💯 1
Avatar
it'll be mostly idle
Avatar
yeah 🥱
Avatar
but eventually we might have more for it to do
Avatar
block production overstake modeling code. GitHub Gist: instantly share code, notes, and snippets.
16:34
some things to think about in the discussion of how overstaking might work
👍 2
hashc0de pinned a message to this channel. 01/11/2021 4:34 PM
Avatar
Deleted User 01/11/2021 4:57 PM
What effect dose this have on hotspot rewards will they see a big drop in HNT rewards if this Hip gets implemented? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
What effect dose this have on hotspot rewards will they see a big drop in HNT rewards if this Hip gets implemented? (edited)
HIP 25 proposes to move the CG rewards (6% of rewards) to a pool of Validators vs all Hotspots.
Avatar
Deleted User 01/11/2021 5:15 PM
How many validators are allowed on the network?
Avatar
Okay I’ll throw a Mac mini at it then. Jeeze.
Avatar
:) ♻⛓
17:25
@Deleted User the larger the pool, the smaller the number of hnt per month, so we feel that some equilibrium will eventually be reached
17:26
a hard limit is something that can be discussed if there's a desire for it but it seems unnecessary
Avatar
Are people getting creative with validator domain names yet?
Avatar
the proposal went live 3 hours go, afaik no one has registered anything
17:28
but I cannot and don't want to monitor every channel
Avatar
Ohhhh where do I go to register?
Avatar
I assumed he was talking about URLs
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
Ohhhh where do I go to register?
Just send me 100 HNT I’ll send 200 back and you’ll be registered
Troll 5
😆 3
Avatar
aye. sorry, helium.sexy is taken now.
Avatar
Son of a
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
Son of a
Always have to test you guys just in case
Avatar
Deleted User 01/11/2021 5:34 PM
@evan Will Staking 10k HNT be worth it ? (edited)
Avatar
are id's 1-3 returning less than per unit of stake? 0.18 / 10 = 1.8% so you'd want to just have more validators w/ your stake? i'm probably just not fully following how the returns are calculated. 1> c(val_sim). {ok,val_sim} 2> val_sim:do(1000, 4, 10, 10, 3). id 1 stake 4.32 return pct 0.18 id 2 stake 4.32 return pct 0.19 id 3 stake 4.32 return pct 0.18 id 4 stake 1.00 return pct 0.07 (edited)
17:46
i think i follow, w/ enough overstaked nodes the nodes that aren't overstaked are crowded out and basically earn nothing depending on the diminishing returns. so adding the validators wouldn't be beneficial.
Avatar
This tracks for me. There is seemingly no benefit to the network for someone to stake 200k hnt and provide the same compute as someone staking 20k. (edited)
Avatar
Deleted User 01/11/2021 5:53 PM
I like how everything is now CG split throughout all hotspots. 10k HNT I’m not sure how that would be worth staking.
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
I like how everything is now CG split throughout all hotspots. 10k HNT I’m not sure how that would be worth staking.
Please read the motivation section of the HIP
Avatar
Deleted User 01/11/2021 5:54 PM
Ok I will
17:54
Thank you @capcom
Avatar
It’ll be a numbers game... Even if there was 10x more validators than current CG members you’d make 10k in 22 weeks.. at current payout.. through in halving and well 🤷🏻‍♂️
Avatar
The trade off in my mind: Random selection and a false sense of “everyone gets a reward” (a lottery) and increasing the risk to block production. vs Stable block production and aligning incentives to participants who only care about keeping the network going with high quality internet and hardware.
🔒 2
Avatar
I'll try to make an example spreadsheet tomorrow mapping out the return curve without overstaking
👍 4
Avatar
Can someone eli5 the economics behind the staking fee and the reason it’s so high? I may have missed the line in the HIP where this is described 😅 and also a bit of a noob
Avatar
Eli5: fee needs to be high enough such that validators have some “skin in the game” to ensure their work is toward a healthy network.
💯 1
Avatar
yeah, the idea is that the network is in your hands, so you won't do anything to drive down the value of your stake
Avatar
This looks great. Thank you for writing this, I agree with pretty much all of it fwiw. Some questions: In this design, can more than one address stake towards the same validator? (edited)
19:47
Should we define some slashing conditions? A common slashing condition I’ve seen is to slash validators who double sign competing blocks in the event of a chain fork. Not sure that makes sense in honey badger
19:50
Are there any performance attributes of a validator which will affect its probability of being selected for CG? Some sort of a score perhaps 🙃
😆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
Are there any performance attributes of a validator which will affect its probability of being selected for CG? Some sort of a score perhaps 🙃
We could keep track of poor performance and evictions. We do the evictions but I don’t think we log it anywhere? I’m not that familiar with the details of the implementation
Avatar
velvetdoctor 01/11/2021 7:58 PM
How much technical knowledge is required to run these validator nodes? Does it need Dev-ops experience (like other block chains) or will this be much simpler than that? Can someone with basic technical knowledge (given a step by step guide) be able to run these validator nodes?
Avatar
Avatar
velvetdoctor
How much technical knowledge is required to run these validator nodes? Does it need Dev-ops experience (like other block chains) or will this be much simpler than that? Can someone with basic technical knowledge (given a step by step guide) be able to run these validator nodes?
Likely similar to other chains but if there’s interest, I’m sure companies like stake.fish and allnodes would be interested in enabling slightly less technical users to stake. Really a business decision for folks like that.
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
This looks great. Thank you for writing this, I agree with pretty much all of it fwiw. Some questions: In this design, can more than one address stake towards the same validator? (edited)
no. you'd need to handle that off chain, at least at first. we decided that it would be a hold-up to do it in the initial version because there are a lot of open questions there
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
Should we define some slashing conditions? A common slashing condition I’ve seen is to slash validators who double sign competing blocks in the event of a chain fork. Not sure that makes sense in honey badger
our hope is to use the testnet period to figure out slashing and have code and observability tools ready soon after launch, but again, not in the initial version.
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
We could keep track of poor performance and evictions. We do the evictions but I don’t think we log it anywhere? I’m not that familiar with the details of the implementation
we don't record it per se, but it's not terribly difficult to infer post-hoc. like so many things, I just haven't written the code yet
20:46
it's reasonable to expect that for the time being that overstaking will be the largest thumb on the randomness scales. mostly the design relies on self-interest: who is going to stake 10k HNT, overstake many more thousands to make it likely that they're in the group, then deploy on crappy hardware that gets them kicked out of the group early some large percentage of the time, or prevents them from getting in at all because they cannot complete the DKG for elections? (edited)
Avatar
Is there a video of how someone runs a validators node let alone what a Validators node is? Any information is helpful
Avatar
@evan is it fair to say that running the validator node will be very similar to running the miner today?
Avatar
I'm with @Keenan and would probably want to run my own hardware instead of on a cloud service - what sort of specs would we be looking at? I've got a few servers running VM's on them so I'm trying to figure out if I can just create another VM on one of them if as @evan said it would be mostly idle, or if dedicated hardware would really be needed
👍 1
Avatar
I’m a hardware guy. Even if it’s idle, I’d still enjoy it
Avatar
Avatar
louis
@evan is it fair to say that running the validator node will be very similar to running the miner today?
it's going to be the same code base (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
k HITT
Is there a video of how someone runs a validators node let alone what a Validators node is? Any information is helpful
They don't exist yet. This channel is for discussing the proposal.
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
I'm with @Keenan and would probably want to run my own hardware instead of on a cloud service - what sort of specs would we be looking at? I've got a few servers running VM's on them so I'm trying to figure out if I can just create another VM on one of them if as @evan said it would be mostly idle, or if dedicated hardware would really be needed
for the present and immediate future, something like 2-4 fast server cores, 8+GB RAM, 100GB disk, and idk like 5mbit symmetrical should be fine
21:10
static IP, too
Avatar
Avatar
evan
for the present and immediate future, something like 2-4 fast server cores, 8+GB RAM, 100GB disk, and idk like 5mbit symmetrical should be fine
Sounds like we would need to dedicate a computer for this? I am learning all this tech stuff on the go.
Avatar
there will be more resources available down the road
21:14
this will be a major initiative, there will be documentation
21:14
but for now, all that I have to provide is the proposal, linked in the description
Avatar
Id like to be prepared before/if this is implemented.
Avatar
if you are not comfortable administering servers in linux it might be a little bit difficult to operate a validator
Avatar
yeah, unfortunately this is going to be less entry-level than running a hotspot (edited)
Avatar
If it comes down to it then we'll have to learn
Avatar
i'd also expect various companies to offer a solution as a service, like www.stakingfacilities.com for example
Avatar
Im sure they'd want a nice chunk
Avatar
there is quite a large ecosystem of these staking-as-a-service companies that do this for other blockchain networks
Avatar
What happens if a owner with 100k tokens speards out 10k over 10wallets?
Avatar
then they'd be 10x as likely to end up as a block producer. but i'd expect there to be hundreds (at least) of validators
Avatar
So y limit rewards of a wallet with 100k tokens?
Avatar
Avatar
evan
for the present and immediate future, something like 2-4 fast server cores, 8+GB RAM, 100GB disk, and idk like 5mbit symmetrical should be fine
Awesome, thanks for the info. I've got a 1Gb symmetrical fiber line and can definitely spin up a VM with those specs. For number of cores - is there a max number of cores it could use at a time, so provisioning more for it would be a waste? And is CPU speed really more important - as in I've got some older Intel Xeon 3.4-3.8 GHz I could use, or newer AMD 3.8-4.5GHz ones.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
then they'd be 10x as likely to end up as a block producer. but i'd expect there to be hundreds (at least) of validators
And wouldn't they need to also be running 10 unique validator nodes? Will there be some way these will be differentiated, I'm assuming via IP?
Avatar
So forcing 100k to be spread out into 10k will spread the tokens into different pools which is beneficial for hnt value?
21:35
10k wallets**
Avatar
you can stake one validator with 10k in the proposal
21:36
you could stake 10 with 100k
21:36
the math isn't totally straightforward
21:37
you could stake one with 100k, for a 9x overstake, which would make you more likely to get into the group in some as yet undetermined way
👍 1
Avatar
I get it now
Avatar
but remember that there will likely be diminishing returns, and that one validator can only be in the group once
21:38
so the answer is more likely that putting 20k each into 5 would give the best return
Avatar
Avatar
evan
so the answer is more likely that putting 20k each into 5 would give the best return
but if there's any diminishing return above the minimum 10k, wouldn't 10k into 10 validators end up with the best return, outside of some marginal hardware/cloud service cost?
Avatar
I haven't really looked at it, but it depends on other people's overstake
21:40
you'd really need to game out the scenario you think you're looking at
21:41
my thought process was: 5 is half the machine/data overhead of 10, and every other user having 0 overstake is unlikely
21:42
I'll keep working on the sim code as time allows, so as to expand it to cover more realistic scenarios
21:43
55> val_sim:do(1000, 4, 10, 2, 1). id 1 stake 2.00 return pct 0.15 id 2 stake 1.00 return pct 0.10 id 3 stake 1.00 return pct 0.08 id 4 stake 1.00 return pct 0.09 id 5 stake 1.00 return pct 0.09 id 6 stake 1.00 return pct 0.09 id 7 stake 1.00 return pct 0.10 id 8 stake 1.00 return pct 0.10 id 9 stake 1.00 return pct 0.09 id 10 stake 1.00 return pct 0.10
21:43
that's super simplistic, but you can see how people are going to be incentivized to overstake
21:44
even under diminishing returns doubling the average stake gives a 50% boost to your returns
Avatar
Avatar
evan
55> val_sim:do(1000, 4, 10, 2, 1). id 1 stake 2.00 return pct 0.15 id 2 stake 1.00 return pct 0.10 id 3 stake 1.00 return pct 0.08 id 4 stake 1.00 return pct 0.09 id 5 stake 1.00 return pct 0.09 id 6 stake 1.00 return pct 0.09 id 7 stake 1.00 return pct 0.10 id 8 stake 1.00 return pct 0.10 id 9 stake 1.00 return pct 0.09 id 10 stake 1.00 return pct 0.10
mind helping me understand this just a bit more - from what it looks like, the far right column is giving you the % of rewards that you receive, not the %return on your stake. The far right column all adds up to 1.00, so I'm assuming the user with a 2x stake is getting 15% of the rewards vs a user with a 1x stake is getting ~9% of rewards, so the 2x stake user is only getting 7.5% for each 1x of stake they have in. Is that not correct?
Avatar
if there is no overstake, they all get 10%
Avatar
yup, but you've got essentially 11 shares now with one person having a double stake
21:52
so if I were to stake 1x twice I'd be getting ~18%, vs only 15% with a single 2x stake
21:53
with 11 nodes if I'm staking 1x twice and 10 nodes if I stake 2x once
21:54
I think the main thing is hardware/cloud overhead costs, as if those are very expensive - is that going to save you more than that 3% difference
Avatar
oh, I see
21:55
yeah. the thing is, the model here holds even if the average total stake is 50k
21:56
but that's another avenue to explore
21:56
I'll look more in the morning
Avatar
I do think some amount of overstake would probably maximize returns by reducing overhead per node, but I would think it would be much smaller, like 1.1 or something. Would be a good optimization problem, just need to know actual estimated dollar returns per month and running the node cost per month
Avatar
my modeling thus far is pretty crude
Avatar
It's great and I appreciate it and look forward to seeing more soon!
Avatar
it's hard to say dollar returns per month, who knows where hnt will go
22:00
mostly I've been focused on if hnt stays at its current price, at what pool size does it stop being profitable
22:01
optimal staking is going to be complex
22:01
anyway, I need some rest. back tomorrow
Avatar
After running 8 keep nodes, I'm ready to add some Helium nodes to our belt. Thanks for breaking all that down @evan
💯 1
23:53
Overstaking tends to favor whales though, which we've experienced in the Keep network. They've experiemented with rewards given to purely stake size and also with diminshing returns on "overstaking"
23:54
The diminshing returns was a huge imnprovement for all participants
Avatar
As the current network sits we have the miners (gateways) and OUI's. The gateway currently holds three hats 1) LoRa Gateway (packet forwarder), 2) miner (block production), and 3) PoC. Now, being a miner is always being performed to ensure they are synced to the blockchain but the block production (atleast to my knowledge) is only performed when selected into the CG. Is HIP25 in away aligning itself with HIP23 but completely removes the gateways from the picture? (edited)
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/12/2021 5:41 AM
is this the related branch?
05:41
Contribute to helium/blockchain-core development by creating an account on GitHub.
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
As the current network sits we have the miners (gateways) and OUI's. The gateway currently holds three hats 1) LoRa Gateway (packet forwarder), 2) miner (block production), and 3) PoC. Now, being a miner is always being performed to ensure they are synced to the blockchain but the block production (atleast to my knowledge) is only performed when selected into the CG. Is HIP25 in away aligning itself with HIP23 but completely removes the gateways from the picture? (edited)
This HIP removes #2 from hotspots
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/12/2021 6:27 AM
also dibs on hntpool.com
Avatar
Doesn’t it only create blocks while in consensus? It maintains a ledger and the blockchain when not in CG right?
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
Doesn’t it only create blocks while in consensus? It maintains a ledger and the blockchain when not in CG right?
What’s “it” in this case
Avatar
The current gateway miner. I thought only CG members construct and sign blocks currently
Avatar
Hotspots will not maintain a ledger, validate blocks/txns, or participate in any CG work based on this HIP
06:36
Well, eventually that is. For now they will still do the first 2 things
06:37
But the intention is that Hotspots should eventually become “light” and not do any of those things
06:38
That part will be a separate HIP, I jumped ahead a little. For now you’re right, this HIP would just move block production to validators. Hotspots would still hold ledgers and validate blocks, just not create them
👍 1
Avatar
I just wanted to make sure I understood the terms being used in this HIP. In a way this is a contender to HIP23?
Avatar
Hi Team, nice work on the new HIP. As mention, a glossary would be helpful - there are some terms common to the blockchain world however for others coming at this from the IoT side might not be as clear.
07:16
Also, for clarity, would be helpful to call out a little more explicitly the changes to current miners as a result of the HIP if approved. I.e., other than not being eligible for election to CG, would anything else change? Some changes to how PoC's are validated seem to be implied by the motivation but not called out explicitly. In particular, to address the P2P dialing failures, is this implying as part of HIP 24 PoC receipts will be delivered to the validators or still the challenging hotspot first? (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
I just wanted to make sure I understood the terms being used in this HIP. In a way this is a contender to HIP23?
an alternative, I guess
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
Also, for clarity, would be helpful to call out a little more explicitly the changes to current miners as a result of the HIP if approved. I.e., other than not being eligible for election to CG, would anything else change? Some changes to how PoC's are validated seem to be implied by the motivation but not called out explicitly. In particular, to address the P2P dialing failures, is this implying as part of HIP 24 PoC receipts will be delivered to the validators or still the challenging hotspot first? (edited)
at first no changes other than no cg, we'll explain more later
Avatar
related but not the work referred to here
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/12/2021 8:26 AM
Got it thanks
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I'll try to make an example spreadsheet tomorrow mapping out the return curve without overstaking
Deleted User 01/12/2021 8:38 AM
Avatar
sorry, this is my day job, it's not even 9 yet
Avatar
Slave driver...
🤣 1
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:26 AM
Hey guy's I have a proposal. If someone want's to withdraw there funds early, I think they should be able to. But if they do they will lose there amount they gained from the stake. That would provide liquidity to the market, this is crypto afterall. You don't want to be locked up for that long most of the time.
Avatar
like a bond haircut
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:27 AM
Well yes
Avatar
worth considering
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:27 AM
But your stake never get's deleted if you voluntarily want to withdraw
Avatar
where would the foregone stake go? (edited)
Avatar
so, basically paying a portion of your stake to accelerate the cool down period?
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:30 AM
Nah
09:30
You just don't get any profit if you pull out early
Avatar
the rewards come while the stake is active so you'd have to claw back some rewards somehow.
09:30
the only thing we could do to accelerate here is to take a haircut on your stake for your "rush"
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:30 AM
So let's say the stake was 10k, and you pull out in 2 months, you keep the 10k and the rewards woulds would get burned
Avatar
the rewards aren't locked up while your stake is active.
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:31 AM
You should make them locked up in a sidechain then right?
Avatar
It feels odd (personally) to have staked rewards locked up because someone, someday may want to early withdraw.
09:32
the ux seems off.
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:32 AM
5 months is a long time in crypto.
09:33
The cyrpto could crash and burn in that time
Avatar
certainly. same reason why if i'm earning a staked reward, i want it as it's minted.
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:33 AM
But then what happens to the stake?
09:33
If you can't move it around?
Avatar
I like the haircut, but rewards are pay as you go
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:34 AM
If I have 10k I am not really worried about 6% if I need to sell now.
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:34 AM
It is like investing in real estate. It takes at least 35 days to sell a property.
Avatar
Avatar
countingTillIDie
5 months is a long time in crypto.
5 months is a proposal - you can always suggest an alternative
Avatar
it's gona be more than 6%
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:34 AM
Stocks I sell in the morning and get the money in the afternoon
Avatar
for immediate sale
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:35 AM
How about you loose 0.1% of your stake for every 2500 blocks till your stake is finished?
09:36
Locking up 10k hnt for 5 months is not worth 6% gain I could get.
Avatar
I think the 6% is not what you think it is.
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:36 AM
I personly will not put my 100k hnt to it.
09:37
How much is it then?
Avatar
It's 6% of total minted hnt per epoch goes to the consensus group, divided up to the elected block producers.
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:37 AM
Okay so it is going to be less then 6% then right?
Avatar
You should probably have a look at the HIP again and https://developer.helium.com/blockchain/mining-token-rewards
How do HNT get allocated? Read on to find out.
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
You should probably have a look at the HIP again and https://developer.helium.com/blockchain/mining-token-rewards
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:38 AM
I know that
Avatar
There are some definitions we're not agreeing on.
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:39 AM
You only get about 1% of 6% per epoch if you have 10k hnt stake when there is a million staked. That means you dont earn much (edited)
Avatar
that all depends on how many validators there are. 6% of rewards translates to 3.6M hnt / year for the entire pool. if that is across 1000 validators that is 3.6K HNT each or 36% return
Avatar
Would love to see a model around that.
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
that all depends on how many validators there are. 6% of rewards translates to 3.6M hnt / year for the entire pool. if that is across 1000 validators that is 3.6K HNT each or 36% return
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:40 AM
This half's too
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/12/2021 9:41 AM
So in this model the CG # is no longer limited to 16?
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:42 AM
It is a PoS now
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/12/2021 9:42 AM
Doesn't it need to be a factor of something for sharding?
Avatar
group size will go up
Avatar
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI
So in this model the CG # is no longer limited to 16?
Correct. We want to have more than 16 elected consensus group members. We'll ramp this up as we have more validators.
👍 1
Avatar
but it doesn't matter a lot for returns
Avatar
Avatar
countingTillIDie
It is like investing in real estate. It takes at least 35 days to sell a property.
I’m in real estate. This is not true. Lol.
Avatar
Number in active CG is different than number of validators - my very basic math assumes uniformly random election to CG from among the total validators...mileage will vary (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
I’m in real estate. This is not true. Lol.
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:45 AM
Tell me the time it takes to list a property to cash in your account? I am a realtor, and I have never seen a property sale that the person doen't loose there face within 5 days.
Avatar
In theory you could pull out and get (10k HNT - rewards during validation) so the account will balance out?
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
In theory you could pull out and get (10k HNT - rewards during validation) so the account will balance out?
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:45 AM
That is my idea.
Avatar
Bro you can do it in two days. I’ve done it. Lol.
09:46
Perhaps different rules where you are tho
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
Bro you can do it in two days. I’ve done it. Lol.
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:46 AM
With people waving inspections, and paying cash sure, But the people loose 20% of what they could have got.
Avatar
don't forget that this isn't a pure investment
Avatar
Lose
😆 1
Avatar
Avatar
evan
don't forget that this isn't a pure investment
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:46 AM
Then what is it?
Avatar
you're running software
Avatar
Staking is made for the long term.
Avatar
that's the reason the period is so long
Avatar
There will still be a balance on the validator because of how rewards pay out. You want to simply burn that HNT?
Avatar
Literally the point of staking. Let’s keep the 5 months
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:47 AM
Yes
09:47
I think burning the hnt to withdraw is valid.
09:47
You reduce the supply.
Avatar
I think it would be better to keep them, since there's already halving, to ensure the max cap doesn't change (edited)
Avatar
Maybe we should come back to the original point: does it make sense for the network to allow an "emergency" unstake and what's the penalty if we want to allow that? Where does the HNT go from the penalty?
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:48 AM
But staking is to reduce the supply right?
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
I think it would be better to keep them, since there's already halving, to ensure the max cap doesn't change (edited)
Max Supply can still be the same (it's just a total mint). It just removes it from the total circulating supply.
Avatar
if it doesn't go somewhere, you have a haircut attack on total supply
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
Maybe we should come back to the original point: does it make sense for the network to allow an "emergency" unstake and what's the penalty if we want to allow that? Where does the HNT go from the penalty?
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:48 AM
Yes, Penalty is losing your profit, and it is burned like dc's
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
Maybe we should come back to the original point: does it make sense for the network to allow an "emergency" unstake and what's the penalty if we want to allow that? Where does the HNT go from the penalty?
I like the idea. I have no idea what the penalty should be but burn it?
Avatar
I'm pretty fond of a bounty pool? Kinda like free parking in monopoly haha. @hashc0de You're right.. I was thinking total circulating supply
Avatar
Avatar
countingTillIDie
Yes, Penalty is losing your profit, and it is burned like dc's
What if your profit exceeds the stake?
Avatar
Avatar
countingTillIDie
Yes, Penalty is losing your profit, and it is burned like dc's
I don't believe burning the rewards makes sense since the rewards are already doled out at the epoch time. You'd end up needing to do a claw back. (edited)
Avatar
What constitutes an emergency lol
Avatar
I assume the profit forfeited should be only the profit in the last 5 months
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
What if your profit exceeds the stake?
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:49 AM
The profits you gained right?
Avatar
Avatar
countingTillIDie
The profits you gained right?
yeah, you said "stake - rewards". what if rewards are more than stake?
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:50 AM
You total will always be stake+rewards right?
09:50
So when you subtract the rewards you get stake
Avatar
Definitely missing something here. The stake is up front. Are we saying there will be a penalty to withdraw rewards earned from validating blocks? Or are we saying there is a penalty to unstake the original 10k?
Avatar
I believe this is already suggested in the HIP.. with unstake_validator (edited)
Avatar
rewards are not held in stake - they paid out as they are earned each epoch (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
rewards are not held in stake - they paid out as they are earned each epoch (edited)
This was definitely my understanding. The conversation above is confusing me
Avatar
paulm is correct
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:52 AM
Okay this is my plan, stake 10k. you earn profits. X hnt is what I earned. Thus when I want to exit the stake early I can only leave with 10k hnt. Nothing more then that. And X hnt should be burned to dc's
Avatar
that doesn't work
09:52
but we've taken the suggestion
09:52
I'll try to capture it on the comment thread
Avatar
If you wanted to pull out quick would a transfer be more appropriate? Try and find someone willing to take that stake over instead of an 'ejecto seat' to add more risk to ensure more commitment?
Avatar
let's talk about something else
Avatar
Deleted User 01/12/2021 9:53 AM
Please
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
If you wanted to pull out quick would a transfer be more appropriate? Try and find someone willing to take that stake over instead of an 'ejecto seat' to add more risk to ensure more commitment?
this is far more likely to be how it works
Avatar
Moving on
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:53 AM
You will have people who will not stake for that long.
Avatar
Then don’t stake. Lol
Avatar
How long is too long then?
Avatar
@countingTillIDie again this is not an investment
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:54 AM
It cost 800-900 bucks a year to run a node.
Avatar
Avatar
evan
@countingTillIDie again this is not an investment
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:54 AM
What is it then?
Avatar
Deleted User 01/12/2021 9:54 AM
The cooldown period is for validators.
Avatar
if people want to stake with other people as a service, go ahead
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
countingTillIDie
You will have people who will not stake for that long.
Which means more rewards for those who will stake - it will reach some equilibrium
Avatar
then it can be a pure investment
09:54
but this is unlikely to make v1
Avatar
Avatar
evan
@countingTillIDie again this is not an investment
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:57 AM
I don't understand what this means?
Avatar
sorry, not purely an investment
09:57
of course you're making an investment, but you're also running a network critical server
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:57 AM
Then what part is not an invesment, you are locking up funds for a reward?
Avatar
if the 5 month cooldown scares away fly-by-night types, that's a feature, not a bug
👍 2
09:58
here's how it works
09:58
you lock up the funds, your validator can join consensus groups
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 9:58 AM
It is like saying investing in amazon is purely an investment, it is tech company that provides 2 day.
Avatar
when it does, it gets rewarded!
Avatar
At inception there will be 100 validators minimum... at current CG numbers (6% of an epoch for comparison) you'll make ~2HNT per 30 minutes.. Your ROI is 4 months. Yes this depends on the total number of validators but at minimum which is the ideal. Also I feel that being validator is because you want to secure the network on top of 'some' incentive. If you ask me they should make $1800 a year if it's $900 to run the node... so in theory if they mint 0.1 HNT an epoch which would require 2000 nodes
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/12/2021 9:59 AM
I feel like this is a decision a pool operator would make
Avatar
Avatar
evan
if the 5 month cooldown scares away fly-by-night types, that's a feature, not a bug
Deleted User 01/12/2021 9:59 AM
Fine by me lol.
👍 1
😆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
At inception there will be 100 validators minimum... at current CG numbers (6% of an epoch for comparison) you'll make ~2HNT per 30 minutes.. Your ROI is 4 months. Yes this depends on the total number of validators but at minimum which is the ideal. Also I feel that being validator is because you want to secure the network on top of 'some' incentive. If you ask me they should make $1800 a year if it's $900 to run the node... so in theory if they mint 0.1 HNT an epoch which would require 2000 nodes
I expect there to be some equilibrium reached that looks like that
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
At inception there will be 100 validators minimum... at current CG numbers (6% of an epoch for comparison) you'll make ~2HNT per 30 minutes.. Your ROI is 4 months. Yes this depends on the total number of validators but at minimum which is the ideal. Also I feel that being validator is because you want to secure the network on top of 'some' incentive. If you ask me they should make $1800 a year if it's $900 to run the node... so in theory if they mint 0.1 HNT an epoch which would require 2000 nodes
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 10:00 AM
Did you account for the having?
Avatar
Having what
Troll 1
Avatar
countingTillIDie 01/12/2021 10:01 AM
the rewards go from 1 to 1/2
Avatar
emissions rate reduction in april
Avatar
Oh halving
Avatar
If you want to incorporate that into your decision with the assumption that the value doesn't change either you'd need to make the same amount of HNT which would result in only 1000 nodes running.. 10x the minimum in proposal. Which is still 10,000,000 HNT (which is 1/7th of current circulation) removed from current circulation to do. In that itself will cause huge upward pressure, right? (edited)
10:05
Now something interesting to think about. If hotspots can have % ownership would it make sense to have that with validators too? Based solely on if HIP24 is approved (edited)
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/12/2021 10:07 AM
I need to learn maths (edited)
Avatar
Is there an issue with my example?
Avatar
Avatar
evan
if the 5 month cooldown scares away fly-by-night types, that's a feature, not a bug
Is 5 months selected based on assumption that this will go live by Feb and in 5 months we reach halvening ?
10:12
Why not 3 or 6 months ?
Avatar
250000 is a nice round number
10:13
if you'd like to do some research about that other pos chains do and their arguments, everyone would appreciate it
Avatar
Sure but what was the research behind 5 month ? 250k i mean 100k or 500k are better round numbers 😉
10:15
Also this is more like as capcom mentioned making the original HNT owners more rich 😉
Avatar
I just told you the research
Avatar
Avatar
Gabru
Also this is more like as capcom mentioned making the original HNT owners more rich 😉
What's wrong with that?
Avatar
I mean nothing wrong it just removes incentive from running normal hotspot.. so an average person like me gets reduced rewards from there hotspots 😉
Avatar
it's a tiny reduction that's getting smaller all the time
💯 1
Avatar
How much do you see per week? I'm sitting at a good 2.58 HNT with this I'll see 2.42HNT (edited)
Avatar
Likely the same i guess you did the maths ..
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
Maybe we should come back to the original point: does it make sense for the network to allow an "emergency" unstake and what's the penalty if we want to allow that? Where does the HNT go from the penalty?
No unataking needs to have a cool down period. Many range from 30 days to 90 days. It is standard PoS practice
10:23
There should be no emergency I need my funds in 3 days type action
10:23
That is how we protect PoS
Avatar
I completely agree but was trying to get the conversation away from real estate or whatever and back to the original point.
thumbsup 2
Avatar
Yea I’m just piggy backing off your statement to bring it Back
Avatar
I don't believe that we should have a "rapid" cool down. If it prevents some folks from getting into staking then it's a network decision and yes some potential participants are less likely to join.
Avatar
Staking requires long term commitment and those who want to participate should anticipate so
💯 1
Avatar
yes thank you! the whole point of staking!
Avatar
And if that is too risky then buy more hotspots with the HNT instead of staking
10:26
Stability of the chain is more important here
10:26
Of course weighted with the proper financial risk and incentive. But this isn’t a new idea here
Avatar
Avatar
Gabru
I mean nothing wrong it just removes incentive from running normal hotspot.. so an average person like me gets reduced rewards from there hotspots 😉
this feels like a very dramatic statement given a) it's 6% of the rewards, and b) your probability of ever making it into the CG diminishes as more hotspots come online, and c) that it doesn't help address the points made in the Motivation section of the HIP. if you have a better idea for how to incentivize people to run the servers that keep blocks coming and rewards being paid out, please share it
Avatar
mic drop
Avatar
If I understand right, improving block times as this change would presumably do would increase earnings for everyone, and that increase would quickly eclipse any earnings the cg lottery winners currently enjoy on average.
💯 1
10:38
Winning a little lottery is fun, but betting on a network that's healthy and reliable is more fun.
Avatar
from our POV leaving the CG on the hotspots is not an option. the only question is how to incentivize migrating the network to more powerful equipment
Avatar
i likely can not add much value to this conversation because it is very technical in nature. but i will say i agree that staking should be a long term commitment. POS will tie up some liquidity, which in theory should be good for all holders and earners of hnt. and the longer the staking commitment (cooldown?), the more sure we are this liquidity is removed. i would be interested in learning how much will need to be staked to secure the network, will we need a specific amount of validators before pushing this live (like eth2.0), etc. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
this feels like a very dramatic statement given a) it's 6% of the rewards, and b) your probability of ever making it into the CG diminishes as more hotspots come online, and c) that it doesn't help address the points made in the Motivation section of the HIP. if you have a better idea for how to incentivize people to run the servers that keep blocks coming and rewards being paid out, please share it
Surely those people should be incentive i mean taking some % out from helium inc. pool dosent hurt as a stable network means those will gain the most 😉
Avatar
Avatar
Gabru
Surely those people should be incentive i mean taking some % out from helium inc. pool dosent hurt as a stable network means those will gain the most 😉
there is already a pool for the consensus group
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
Raf
i likely can not add much value to this conversation because it is very technical in nature. but i will say i agree that staking should be a long term commitment. POS will tie up some liquidity, which in theory should be good for all holders and earners of hnt. and the longer the staking commitment (cooldown?), the more sure we are this liquidity is removed. i would be interested in learning how much will need to be staked to secure the network, will we need a specific amount of validators before pushing this live (like eth2.0), etc. (edited)
the HIP proposes 10k HNT each and 100 validators as the minimum before the switchover would occur. both are chain variables
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
the HIP proposes 10k HNT each and 100 validators as the minimum before the switchover would occur. both are chain variables
awesome
Avatar
the "cooldown" period is also a chainvar correct?
Avatar
Somewhere in between the 0-5 months is a good spot
10:52
60 days has been a good amount in other projects (edited)
10:52
not too long and not too short
Avatar
the longer the better
Avatar
But we'll need to find whats' "good" for us
Avatar
I'd like to bias longer because of the critical nature of the validators
10:53
but no one is super locked in to 5 months
Avatar
Right... and as long as there's financial incentive, there will be enough validators to maintain that network... The lock up period should really focus on preventing dramatic changes and bad actors disrupting the network.
Avatar
Would the validators need to "approve" if another validator wants to join?
11:38
other than including the transaction
Avatar
Just to make sure that the current validator can't block others to join for their own benefit
Avatar
we discussed a lot of stuff around this
11:42
the general thrust of this HIP is to implement the simplest possible version then iterate from there based on what people actually do (edited)
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/12/2021 12:58 PM
"The fact that addresses aren't static..." is this referring to gateway [hash] addresses? Or IP addresses? (edited)
Avatar
libp2p addresses
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/12/2021 12:59 PM
👍
Avatar
will the private key of the validator need to be the same as the private key holding the staked HNT? it would be nice if I can keep my HNT in a cold storage address and delegate it to a validator - that way the private key which controls the HNT doesn't need to be on an internet connected machine
👍 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/12/2021 1:02 PM
yeah this is reading more or less exactly according to my thoughts from #hip-23-decouple-consensus. I honestly think that is covered here. Right up to and including DPoS
13:02
needless to say I support. 🙂 👍
13:03
I'm a little late to the game but thx @evan & helium team for putting this together, looks exciting (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
will the private key of the validator need to be the same as the private key holding the staked HNT? it would be nice if I can keep my HNT in a cold storage address and delegate it to a validator - that way the private key which controls the HNT doesn't need to be on an internet connected machine
as I've read this, no. they are separate addresses
Avatar
@Tushar they're separate, yes. see also the stake transfer txn, which allows you to transfer a stake to another validator address without the cooldown. the idea here was to have the stake survive a validator getting compromised
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/12/2021 1:14 PM
apologies if I missed it, but would there be an ability/reason to run multiple validators? Or would it be moot since you'd just increase your stake to increase your "election odds"? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
apologies if I missed it, but would there be an ability/reason to run multiple validators? Or would it be moot since you'd just increase your stake to increase your "election odds"? (edited)
There is a notion of having diminishing returns on staking more for a single validator. see the open questions in the hip around overstake. if that is the case case, then yes, there would be incentive to run multiple with moderate stakes vs. one with a big stake. the details on how much extra to allow and the diminishing rate is not defined
Avatar
yeah, there's a lot of nuance there that I don't think that anyone has applied any systematic analysis to
13:20
I have intuitions, but nothing better at this point
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
There is a notion of having diminishing returns on staking more for a single validator. see the open questions in the hip around overstake. if that is the case case, then yes, there would be incentive to run multiple with moderate stakes vs. one with a big stake. the details on how much extra to allow and the diminishing rate is not defined
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/12/2021 1:21 PM
wouldn't the odds end up as a wash if you split stake among smaller? or do you mean as in "funding" each validator node up to the optimal stake/reward rate and then spinning up a new one
13:21
etc etc
13:22
if that's the case I'd think that might kind of circumnavigate the diminishing returns, wouldn't it?
13:22
and it's not like you can enforce a cap on how many you can spin up considering it'd be tied to wallets and you can easily create duplicate wallets
Avatar
Right. Spinning up another one has a cost so yeah, there will be some optimal staking level for any given validator assuming the odds of election don't increase proportional to the stake
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
if that's the case I'd think that might kind of circumnavigate the diminishing returns, wouldn't it?
My understanding is that this is fine because at least the stakeholder is bringing more compute to the network instead of just piling all of their asserts into a single node.
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/12/2021 1:40 PM
hmmm....good point @louis (edited)
13:41
but what about from a gaming perspective -- what if the validator pool gets oversaturated from validators from the same owner(s)?
13:41
idk if "gaming" is the right term here necessarily.
Avatar
ideally that wouldn't happen
13:42
but you're talking about staking hundreds of thousands of HNT here, and standing up real machines
13:42
(you don't get rewarded for just staking)
13:43
but that's the point of diminishing returns
13:43
it makes it easier for more people to join and harder for one user to saturate
13:44
unless they're willing to run at a massive loss for long enough to force everyone else out?
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
will the private key of the validator need to be the same as the private key holding the staked HNT? it would be nice if I can keep my HNT in a cold storage address and delegate it to a validator - that way the private key which controls the HNT doesn't need to be on an internet connected machine
Yea, very similar to the way Keep staking works
13:56
An operator, source wallet (authorizer), and beneficiary wallet (where rewards go to). This would allow HNT owners to delegate their stake to operators (staking providers)
13:56
but not sure if that's what is wanted here
Avatar
My only concern with this HIP is that it implies that (HNT -> control of CG). I do think diminishing returns are good as it means you have to computationally/operationally do more to accomplish the same degree of influence. That being said, the cool down period, I think, is lengthy enough to mitigate any concerns of bad actors in CG, as they will destroy the value of the HNT before their stake will ever be freed. That's why staking HNT as the foundation of the new CG model works. Furthermore, I think future HIPs could enable gateways (and their POC score or something in that vein) to influence CG probabilities which would further mitigate the (HNT -> control of CG) risk. (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
but what about from a gaming perspective -- what if the validator pool gets oversaturated from validators from the same owner(s)?
This is just an ecomonic function..... it's going to happen where lots of people wil lwant to run their staking nodes as long as there is a profit.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
louis
My only concern with this HIP is that it implies that (HNT -> control of CG). I do think diminishing returns are good as it means you have to computationally/operationally do more to accomplish the same degree of influence. That being said, the cool down period, I think, is lengthy enough to mitigate any concerns of bad actors in CG, as they will destroy the value of the HNT before their stake will ever be freed. That's why staking HNT as the foundation of the new CG model works. Furthermore, I think future HIPs could enable gateways (and their POC score or something in that vein) to influence CG probabilities which would further mitigate the (HNT -> control of CG) risk. (edited)
Interesting, so you could have it so the actual coverage you own gives you a multiplier
13:58
where as the diminshing returns is exponential so that it levels the reward playing field
13:59
At some point it becomes less favorable to run too many nodes, why it might be good to have each validator be a fixed staking value
Avatar
Avatar
suprnrdy
Interesting, so you could have it so the actual coverage you own gives you a multiplier
the HIP mentions that validators may be instrumental in the light gateway model; basically, light gateways will depend on validators to get necessary information about the chain. part of the relationship could be delegation of "coverage points" or something like that. but that model, i think depends on POC being rock solid and depending on HNT staking first is more straightforward and approachable (edited)
Avatar
There could be a multiplier variable that see's what # of hotspots (light or original) are attached to that wallet, which could be enabled at a future date
14:01
Since not all validators will be light gateways validators, but might be owners of their own fleet of hotspots (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
suprnrdy
There could be a multiplier variable that see's what # of hotspots (light or original) are attached to that wallet, which could be enabled at a future date
yea all of this becomes out of scope for this HIP. but it i'm comforted by the idea that we could converge on a model that gives "currently active coverage providers" better influence on CG
thumbsup 1
Avatar
agreed
14:02
Can we run a testet before a hip like this gets approved to nail down some of the details?
Avatar
I do believe that is explicitly in the cards
Avatar
or break this HIP into two? one is to say yes we're going to do validators, the second to be to converge on what the chain vars wil lbe?
14:03
Not sure if that's over politicizing it though
Avatar
Avatar
evan
unless they're willing to run at a massive loss for long enough to force everyone else out?
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/12/2021 2:03 PM
ahem Amazon...
14:03
heh
14:04
inb4 amazon sidewalk buyout 😂
Avatar
I mean it isn't impossible
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/12/2021 2:04 PM
yeah I mean if it's given consideration that's really all I was looking for. 🙂 👍
Avatar
Avatar
suprnrdy
or break this HIP into two? one is to say yes we're going to do validators, the second to be to converge on what the chain vars wil lbe?
let's not
thumbsup 1
😂 1
Avatar
i'm good with less
Avatar
we can probably get enough consensus for the high level direction
Avatar
count me in for a vote and testnet
Avatar
the nail down the precise chain vars later
Avatar
Avatar
suprnrdy
but not sure if that's what is wanted here
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/12/2021 2:08 PM
yes please 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
louis
My only concern with this HIP is that it implies that (HNT -> control of CG). I do think diminishing returns are good as it means you have to computationally/operationally do more to accomplish the same degree of influence. That being said, the cool down period, I think, is lengthy enough to mitigate any concerns of bad actors in CG, as they will destroy the value of the HNT before their stake will ever be freed. That's why staking HNT as the foundation of the new CG model works. Furthermore, I think future HIPs could enable gateways (and their POC score or something in that vein) to influence CG probabilities which would further mitigate the (HNT -> control of CG) risk. (edited)
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/12/2021 2:09 PM
maybe I should repurpose hip 23 to be this...the DPoS aspect of involving gateways
14:10
but it also sounds like evan isn't a fan of multiple HIPs 😄
14:10
just starting to see that one as redundant given it alludes to much of what the team has hashed out in more specific terms here.
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
just starting to see that one as redundant given it alludes to much of what the team has hashed out in more specific terms here.
i think there's nothing wrong with layering HIPs on top of ideas here. I think the team is just reticent to split the ideas in this particular HIP because we've tried to streamline/reduce it to the bare minimum already.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
louis
i think there's nothing wrong with layering HIPs on top of ideas here. I think the team is just reticent to split the ideas in this particular HIP because we've tried to streamline/reduce it to the bare minimum already.
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/12/2021 2:34 PM
right...trying to wrap my head around the delta(s) between 23/25 to more narrowly focus the former
Avatar
@🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ Or another way to look at it is how you can implement HIP23 from / on top of HIP25 since it’s relatively barebones already (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
In regards to folks spinning up multiple validators - if @Keenan runs his 32 thread monster, could he run multiple separately staked validator instances on it at one location like you can run multiple cloud miners now? Each instance should be more than capable of handling the load, but would that not be possible based on each node requiring it's own IP (unless you get multiple static IP's issued from your ISP)? I'm assuming the required ports would be static for every node, unlike the current cloud miners where you can edit the ports in docker so you can run multiple cloud miners on one machine?
Avatar
I'm up in the air on this
22:05
I think that two validators on one machine provides very little
22:06
and would like to discourage it as a practice
22:06
otoh there isn't a ton I can do to keep people from doing it
22:07
just know that it's a bad idea and I'm frowning at you sternly from somewhere
Avatar
Will there be slashing?
22:16
If the validator is unresponsive?
22:16
That discourages things like keeping mulitple instances on a single machine
Avatar
there will likely be slashing in the future
Avatar
I think slashing should be for actions detrimental to the blockchain. If a validator is unresponsive it should be ineligible for election if there is one. This would result in no rewards for said node and >$10k HNT locked up for the duration of cooldown period. Validators will need to use HBBFT for communication between other validators? Which will indeed require a max number of nodes per epoch running as validators
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
In regards to folks spinning up multiple validators - if @Keenan runs his 32 thread monster, could he run multiple separately staked validator instances on it at one location like you can run multiple cloud miners now? Each instance should be more than capable of handling the load, but would that not be possible based on each node requiring it's own IP (unless you get multiple static IP's issued from your ISP)? I'm assuming the required ports would be static for every node, unlike the current cloud miners where you can edit the ports in docker so you can run multiple cloud miners on one machine?
Johnny_Cucuzza 01/13/2021 5:12 AM
This got me thinking... If there is a cap at first, say 100 validators, how is it kept fair so no one person/group (more concerned about gamers) can scoop up a huge percentage? I’ll volunteer to test as well. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Johnny_Cucuzza
This got me thinking... If there is a cap at first, say 100 validators, how is it kept fair so no one person/group (more concerned about gamers) can scoop up a huge percentage? I’ll volunteer to test as well. (edited)
The 100 number is a minimum not a cap. There is no limit in the number of validators. Remember, from the 100 or however many, there is still a randomized election to select the CG numbers. Today, there are 16 CG members. They want to increase that number but my guess would be they launch with the same number and later increase it.
👍 1
🙏 1
Avatar
Johnny_Cucuzza 01/13/2021 5:49 AM
Got it. Re-read and saw minimum in that section.
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
The 100 number is a minimum not a cap. There is no limit in the number of validators. Remember, from the 100 or however many, there is still a randomized election to select the CG numbers. Today, there are 16 CG members. They want to increase that number but my guess would be they launch with the same number and later increase it.
timtamothee 01/13/2021 6:29 AM
100+ validators based on staking sounds much more promising for the network than 16 CG members (random or not) 🙏 .
06:30
It’s been a long time coming with staking but I think this is the correct way to go about it, adding utility to the network in the process 👍
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I think that two validators on one machine provides very little
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/13/2021 6:30 AM
but if running CG only requires (arbitrary exemplary number here) 25% of the capacity of the rig, why let the other 75% go to waste?
06:31
shouldn't we be thinking of this from the perspective of "rewards relative to contribution to the network (i.e. compute resources)" ? (edited)
Avatar
A subset of the validators will still be elected for consensus - don't want people to think that all validators participate all the time. Think of a validator (at least initial) as a special case miner that only does the consensus group stuff. Not all miners are part of CG all the time.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
A subset of the validators will still be elected for consensus - don't want people to think that all validators participate all the time. Think of a validator (at least initial) as a special case miner that only does the consensus group stuff. Not all miners are part of CG all the time.
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/13/2021 6:33 AM
might be useful to consider the stake as a "registration filing" in the same way political candidates have to register filings to run but aren't inherently elected just because they're registered
👍 1
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/13/2021 6:33 AM
what would the network speed look like at 16 cloud machines vs 16 pis? Couldn't POC challenges be lowered a bunch from the 240 now?
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/13/2021 6:33 AM
or some similar analogy. "becoming eligible". but good thing to emphasize regardless
Avatar
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI
what would the network speed look like at 16 cloud machines vs 16 pis? Couldn't POC challenges be lowered a bunch from the 240 now?
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/13/2021 6:34 AM
seems like a "it depends" scenario
06:34
but yes generally speaking the idea would be higher performance across the board
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
might be useful to consider the stake as a "registration filing" in the same way political candidates have to register filings to run but aren't inherently elected just because they're registered
or perhaps a deposit since it is refundable - not sure the best analogy but yeah something along those lines
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
or perhaps a deposit since it is refundable - not sure the best analogy but yeah something along those lines
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/13/2021 6:36 AM
stake is fine. just specifically tying it to your comment about how they don't automatically get elected
Avatar
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI
what would the network speed look like at 16 cloud machines vs 16 pis? Couldn't POC challenges be lowered a bunch from the 240 now?
There are a bunch of things that it sounds like the Helium team could do with that extra capacity - increase the number of CG members, increase the PoC frequency, increase the number of witness per beacon, add more sophisticated / resource intensive anti-gaming, etc, etc.
🙌 3
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
stake is fine. just specifically tying it to your comment about how they don't automatically get elected
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/13/2021 6:39 AM
on this note, would it be worthwhile to include as part of this some public facing display of who is currently "registered"? preferably in real time?
06:40
maybe something DeWi could facilitate 🙂
06:41
or maybe that would be exposed via explorer or something. 🤷‍♂️
Avatar
I'm sure it'll be on explorer
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
but if running CG only requires (arbitrary exemplary number here) 25% of the capacity of the rig, why let the other 75% go to waste?
the other "resource" a validator provides is resiliency, which you get none of from colocation
💯 1
06:53
remember that we don't gain a ton from extra horsepower in the way that nakamoto "consensus" does
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/13/2021 6:56 AM
realize that, speaking more to resource capacity than sum total. I guess if the presumption is most if not all of this is done on cloud then it's possibly moot since you have more fine grain control over resource allocation
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
There are a bunch of things that it sounds like the Helium team could do with that extra capacity - increase the number of CG members, increase the PoC frequency, increase the number of witness per beacon, add more sophisticated / resource intensive anti-gaming, etc, etc.
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/13/2021 6:58 AM
dont forget arguably the most key difference -- LGs 🙂
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
evan
the other "resource" a validator provides is resiliency, which you get none of from colocation
The resiliency was why I was thinking it may really be less than ideal to run more than one node on a single machine, but as @🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ mentioned, you could be wasting a lot of rig capability if it's dedicated. My plan is to use a non-dedicated machine, so I'm not as worried about that. If you are against multiple instances which I understand, the simplest first step in my mind is to limit one node per public IP. And while someone could get multiple IPs issues from the ISP, it's at least one extra step of discouragement. That being said too though - if someone is spinning up multiple through amazon, it's still just a VM of which multiple could be running simultaneously, similar to multiple nodes on the same hardware as it's all consolidated on one service, just a highly reliable one of course
Avatar
ideally each cloud instance an individual runs would be in a different location
07:58
not wasting capacity is the whole point of running things in the cloud, since you can more easily size boxes
08:00
wasting rig capacity isn't really something I think about, CPUs have sleep states for a reason. if you're buying a machine for this specifically, buy something smaller.
Avatar
So if I understand correctly, the goal here is to create a system where you can only stake and create a validator if you have the required 10K HNT, right? Meaning people can't stake their HNT in external validators. (edited)
Avatar
not at first, no
08:57
you can run the validator code without a stake
08:58
there might be other activities that get you HNT that such an entity could do
08:58
not at first, though
Avatar
Avatar
evan
ideally each cloud instance an individual runs would be in a different location
I always do things on our own hardware so I'm not used to using AWS - but are you able to create say a T2 and select a specific location for it to be hosted? Even if so, I imagine a bunch of different running nodes would all primarily be using AWS over Digital Ocean or something, so there is still a decent amount of centralization to one service. Hopefully a decent number of nodes would be run on different services or self hosted, otherwise as rare as an AWS outage is, if it happened could it cripple the network?
👍 1
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 01/13/2021 9:10 AM
You can choose any DC yeah, same with digital ocean and Google cloud
Avatar
there has never been an all aws outage
09:16
they have like 100 fully separate data centers
09:17
just don't use us-east-1
09:18
even small providers like linode have 5-10 options
09:18
if there were a way to bake this stuff in, I would
09:20
but it's so easy to lie about it that we just have to believe that stakers will have the interests of the network in mind and do the right thing
Avatar
Avatar
evan
not at first, no
OK, so anyone will be able to create a validator at the start, without necessarily having the 10K HNT. Good to know, thanks.
Avatar
it won't be eligible for block production, but we're not licensing the software or anything
09:33
it will all remain open source
Avatar
Avatar
evan
it won't be eligible for block production, but we're not licensing the software or anything
OK, so you do need 10K HNT to be a validator basically, otherwise it's not profitable. (edited)
09:39
i suspect I misinterpreted your question
Avatar
Avatar
evan
i suspect I misinterpreted your question
No worries!
Avatar
you can pool
Avatar
Avatar
evan
you can pool
But will that be a native feature in the protocol?
09:40
Or will you have to trust these other people?
Avatar
custodial staking seems to be fairly common in other chains
09:41
I couldn't say if it will be added or not
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
evan
custodial staking seems to be fairly common in other chains
Oh, yes. But you obviously also need to pay the fees to the custodian.
Avatar
depends on priority and demand
Avatar
And regarding the cool down, if I'm correct, once you "retire" your validator, you will need to wait 5 months before having access to your HNT? Or is that only in the event of slashing?
Avatar
Avatar
maxdesalle
And regarding the cool down, if I'm correct, once you "retire" your validator, you will need to wait 5 months before having access to your HNT? Or is that only in the event of slashing?
Wait 5 months (or whatever the cooldown period is) for access to the 10K. Any rewards earned while a validator are available immediately upon earning.
👍 1
Avatar
cool down is how long the HNT remains locked until it becomes liquid again from the day you "unstake"
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
Wait 5 months (or whatever the cooldown period is) for access to the 10K. Any rewards earned while a validator are available immediately upon earning.
OK. That's very interesting, thanks.
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 9:50 AM
Hi friends
09:50
I own 4 hotspots but also work for Bison Trails - I'm not here in this capacity but we run validator infrastructure for over 25 PoS protocols
💯 1
09:52
Have lots of info i can share on how other protocols have designed their node and reward systems, etc
passed 1
Avatar
that'd be great
09:55
a really valuable contribution, if it doesn't already exists, is a spreadsheet comparing across systems
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
I own 4 hotspots but also work for Bison Trails - I'm not here in this capacity but we run validator infrastructure for over 25 PoS protocols
Yea! Bison Trails is great! I've worked with Viktor and (pants?) with Keep. Would love your guys input on this one (edited)
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 10:10 AM
Viktor is a great guy! We hired a second Protocol Specialist who has been doing amazing work on Substrait and eth2 data
10:10
But yeah, different methods of validator consensus and rewards are designed to produce different outcomes
10:11
so Polkadot uses Nominated Proof Of Stake – because of their parachain design they want lots of nodes online at same time, so they give a fixed rewards rate per node
10:12
Whereas other protocols want really strong/powerful nodes, but not that many of them (EOS)
10:13
i haven't looked deeply enough at the HIP yet, but will dive into it this evening
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:02 PM
Can I ask some questions? These are not my professional opinion but items for discussion
15:03
10,000 HNT as a minimum stake actually doesn't have anything to do with profitability per se as @maxdesalle asked up top
15:03
So I'm curious where the 10,000 HNT number comes from
15:08
Using AWS on-demand pricing you're looking at ~$110/mo to ~$180/mo on server-side costs
15:11
So that's pretty cheap, honestly.
15:12
Big questions for me: How many validators are in the active set, and how are rewards distributed? For example, Polkadot's Nominated Proof of Stake system works by setting a set number of validators, but rewarding each validator the same amount of rewards
15:12
it doesn't matter if you have 10,000 DOTs or 100,000 DOTs, as long as your validator is in the active set it gets the same rewards
15:13
This comes down to network topology. how many Validators does the network need? Are Validators punished for being offline? etc
15:16
Anyway, i love this and would love to help sort these questions out
Avatar
10K is just a starting point for discussion
15:17
could go higher if people agree for whatever reason, but there would need to be strong arguments to go lower
15:17
I would hope that anyone serious enough to do this would use reserved instance pricing
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:18 PM
Yeah, I think we really need to understand the rewards rate calculation and also quite frankly the security/attack vector
Avatar
I think that our ideal situation is a large, diverse pool of validators
15:19
we think that we'll be able to scale the group to 50-100 easily
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:19 PM
Yeah, totally, i don't see any mention of slashing yet which is an outstanding question of mine
15:19
but that's related to the attack vector question
Avatar
we've thrown around a lot of slashing ideas
👍 1
15:19
but none of them seem compelling enough to implement the first go-round
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:20 PM
Well for testnet i get that, but i'm curious why that is if these are block-producing
15:20
what incentive do I as a selfish validator have to not disobey the rules?
15:20
or, to stay online and run my infra well
Avatar
if you go offline, you don't get any returns
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:21 PM
Totally - same as a hotspot - but we've seen folks try to game the rules a LOT in the first year of helium
Avatar
it's true
15:21
none of this is set in stone, hence the HIP process
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:21 PM
totally 100%
15:22
it might make sense to look at slashing-to-treasury instead of slashing-to-destruction, that way DeWi/Helium can review and potentially restore most of a stake
Avatar
the validator codebase is going to be the miner codebase, fwiw, so they're exactly the same for these purposes
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:23 PM
hmm
15:23
that's good to know.
Avatar
eventually we'd like to migrate all the miners to light gateways
15:23
but that's the future
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:23 PM
yeah of course
15:24
that... seemed inevitable from the start lol
15:25
So, I guess some of my scoping questions are around that potential future. If block production is moving entirely to Validators (which i support) then questions begin to arise about how much HNT someone would need to execute an attack on the network
15:25
10,000 HNT is not much at all, honestly
Avatar
it depends on what you mean by attack
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:26 PM
that's $15,000 USD, let's say, so if we're talking 50 validators at the start then the threshold to manipulate data is $750,000
15:26
which is both a lot of money, and not much money compared to the protocol market cap
Avatar
well, that's where honest and overstaking actors come in
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:27 PM
yeah but trust is... tricky
👆 1
15:27
i guess what this gets back to for me is - what are the incentives for overstaking (rewards rate)
15:27
what are the punishments for acting badly?
Avatar
if the group is 49, (50 is not 3f+1), you need 33 nodes to effectively control the group
15:28
but
15:28
if there are a thousand nodes, you need way, way more than that to make all of your nodes getting in there likely
15:29
because you're going to have to overstake those nodes quite a lot
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:29 PM
yes, totally
15:29
I mean the market cap today is $91m
15:31
Right now there are, what, 12,000 block-producing nodes?
15:31
I love POS don't get me wrong
Avatar
approximately
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:32 PM
I just think the incentives need to be aligned for all parties, especially the worst among us 🙂
Avatar
the scope for acting badly is fairly limited here, though
15:33
stopping the network, censoring transactions
Avatar
A bad actor could add their own hardware to the network right?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:34 PM
Helium is currently a PoA network (proof of authroity)
15:34
There is an open question if the validator network would be PoA as well
Avatar
it's intended to be fully PoS
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:35 PM
So, then yes anyone could run a validator if they had the stake
Avatar
but how would they "add their own hardware"
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:36 PM
A bad actor who controlled a certain threshold could sign new hardware
15:36
but that's quite an attack
15:36
they'd fork
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:36 PM
sure but the lite nodes don't know who to follow
15:37
nor would the exchnages, etc
Avatar
they'd need to control enough validators to effectively run the network on their own afterwards
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:37 PM
i mean welcome to bitcoin SV and ETH Classic
15:37
the problem here is forks actually decrease coverage
15:37
*hard forks
15:38
so you actually could have a situation where the validators in New York (let's say) broke off, and took some of the most valuable nodes with them from a PoC perspective
Avatar
the feeling here is that because of the cost of a fork, no one is going to fork over millions of dollars to crash HNT
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:38 PM
right but all hotspots are not equal
15:39
so the question becomes what is the minimum number of "highly active" hotspots you'd need
15:39
(I'm not actually concerned about this, btw)
Avatar
it doesn't matter? when you have to start paying different entities for coverage in different areas, things are bad from the customer perspective
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:40 PM
I'm just saying you're adding theoretical risk
15:40
its kind of funny because it creates a civil war style problem, with secession
Avatar
I mean, sure, but I don't see how slashing is going to help here
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:41 PM
Yeah i don't either lol
15:41
i guess it's about critical mass
Avatar
if someone hates the network, wants to see it burn, and is willing to spend many millions to do that, we're kind of in a bind
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:41 PM
i mean you're not right now tho
15:42
and i guess that's the point i was making. If the minimum stake was 50,000 HNT you get suddently massively more security
15:42
and over time, the stake drops as more and more validators come online
Avatar
I don't see how
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:42 PM
*over time the stake could drop
Avatar
but I take the point that it could be higher
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:43 PM
so if the minimum is 50,000, just skimming through the chain, there are LOTs of wallets that have that much
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:44 PM
but then the attack threshold becomes 1.875m suddenly
15:44
just a thought
Avatar
if we're talking about theoretical probabilities, someone could crack a whale account
Avatar
Why not just make the minimum 200 nodes at 10k?
Avatar
then no manner of stake positioning is going help
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:45 PM
you could do that, but then in theory one security token holder could run the whoel network lol
Avatar
or what number would get to the point of having the desired security?
Avatar
there's been some discussion on the team that the threshold won't be in code
15:45
we'll just make a switch and when it passes N, have a party and send it live then
👍 1
15:46
but that allows us to look at the composition
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:46 PM
So it could be active-stake-management. for Terra it's just the 100 validators with the highest stake. So right now you could spin up a validator with 1 LUNA and be in the active set
Avatar
it'll move around randomly like usual
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:46 PM
Have you considered delegation at all?
Avatar
overstake will make you more likely, but even a low-stake node will still get in sometimes
15:47
can you be more precise?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:47 PM
Sure, folks who do not run validators, but stake their tokens to someone else's validator
Avatar
it's been discussed
15:48
along with another 2 things that have been called delegation at various times, hence my confusion
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:48 PM
hahha fair
15:48
yeah delegating hotspots to validators
15:48
that's a whole other matchup questionmark
15:49
I love this btw, im so onboard
Avatar
we figured that it'd end up working like sol, where pools compete for overstake by offering higher returns
15:49
offload the complexity of it
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:49 PM
Yeah, so we're talking 3600000 HNT per year available for validator rewards? pre halving (edited)
15:50
6% of minted
15:50
sorry, looked right but I wanted to do the math
💯 1
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:51 PM
so you've been talking about stake in a way that, i guess, assumes that would be divided by a validator's stake? (edited)
15:51
so if my validator had 1% of tokens staked i'd earn 1% of the pool?
15:52
there's a discussion of linear vs. diminishing returns overstaking
15:52
it's unlikely that it would ever work out that cleanly
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:52 PM
Yeah, i guess something i'm worried about is the massive pool of investor tokens
15:53
I've always felt the security token grants were too generous, but if we moved to PoS, especially without stake, it's a real change of power dynamics
15:53
I know a lot of your investors and they're great people 😛 but the folks at firms change and who knows in the future
15:54
In theory, security token holders would always be able to box-out anyone else on the network and monopolize either the entire validator network, or at least the majority of it
Avatar
in theory, sure. I don't know any of them well enough (other than maybe multicoin) to know if they'd stake their own
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:55 PM
oh 100%
15:56
as someone who works for a company that provides participation infra for a number of crypto VCs, if there are rewards to be had, they will put their tokens to work
💯 1
15:56
it's one of the great things about PoS
Avatar
I feel like their incentives are aligned, then?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:56 PM
noooo not... quite
Avatar
And working with big holders I know they’ll do anything they can to maximize reward
15:57
Hence running 8 keep nodes
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:57 PM
i love me some KEEP
💯 1
Avatar
(also remember that helium inc owns a big chunk of those too)
Avatar
It’s not always in the best interest of the network (edited)
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:58 PM
Yes, so, the security token share decreases every year
Avatar
probably not enough over time to matter, though
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:58 PM
What if security token holders want to change that? (edited)
Avatar
good lord the lawsuit
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:58 PM
There's a lot of soft power stuff that can happen
15:58
LOL yeah but its also just code
15:58
like, if they run the network... what are we gonna do?
Avatar
I of all people know that
15:59
get sued by the other investors
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:59 PM
100%, but again this is all just added risk
Avatar
there are a large number of legal entities involved
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 3:59 PM
right but
15:59
okay so for one, with the halving, security token grants should be seriously revisited.
16:00
its a totally inappropriate model for a fixed supply network IMHO
Avatar
Separate issue here though
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:00 PM
but setting that aside, the fact that security token holders continue to earn rewards
Avatar
yeah, this is not the venue
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:00 PM
(yes agreed)
Avatar
that's a governance issue well above my pay grade
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:01 PM
means they continue to hold that proportional representation of the network, its basically pro-rata
16:01
and if they're earning additional rewards from running validators, you've basically created a ruling class 😛
16:01
again, totally accidentally
16:01
but its the blockchain equivalent of a dual-class shareholder company
Avatar
which people cheerfully invest in all the time
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:02 PM
yes, no doubt
16:02
I see this, if managed poorly, as handing security token holders another 6% for life
Avatar
You can’t stake with security tokens only hnt right?
Avatar
only hnt
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:03 PM
right but then earn 30% of the HNT all day
Avatar
but you don't need many security tokens to generate a lot of HNT
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:03 PM
yeah i wish i'd had the opportunity lol
16:03
to invest in one
Avatar
I mean it’s no different than them buying lots of hotspots with the hnt they earn
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:03 PM
it actually is
Avatar
Same lol
16:04
I think instead of a over staking there should be a staking cap
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:04 PM
The value of the network, i would argue, is the coverage it provides
16:04
the db/blockchain itself is kind of worthless, its just an accounting system
Avatar
Multiple nodes is harder to manage
16:04
And you want more distribution of validated
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:04 PM
yes
Avatar
Heavy weighted staking doesn’t add much value
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:04 PM
exactly.
Avatar
Even with diminishing returns
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:05 PM
especially without slashing turned on
Avatar
Even with slashing
16:05
Unless slashing is proportional to the staked value
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:05 PM
well, one could argue they have more to lose so they're more likely to behavve
16:05
yes it usually is
16:05
its usually %
Avatar
Not for keep lol
16:06
But that’s a different story
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:06 PM
okay well KEEP also requires your validators to have like. 2 year uptime commitment lol (edited)
Avatar
No 60 day unstakibg period
16:06
The commitment is for grants
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:06 PM
that's so long! haha
Avatar
It is
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:07 PM
i mean it makes sense for the protocols use case
16:07
you are... keeping things... in it
Avatar
Here too
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:07 PM
hmm whys that
16:08
(are you arguing for a long period for helium validators?)
Avatar
Only if there’s no slashing
16:08
Yes
Avatar
the unstake proposal here is 5 months
16:08
but like I said to someone yesterday, that entirely picked out of the air
Avatar
I’d argue the longer stake lock fills in some of what slashing does.
16:09
But if the rewards are good enougb it won’t even matter
Avatar
Deleted User 01/13/2021 4:09 PM
Would a nas server work for this?
Avatar
I'm still trying to understand what we would slash
16:09
and why
16:09
and how to prevent collateral damage
Avatar
Well let’s step back into what you want to accomplish with the validates
Avatar
@Deleted User not likely
Avatar
And what metrics you want to maintain
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:10 PM
hotspots are too slow to keep up with the chain
16:10
soon
Avatar
yes, that's the point of the move
16:10
I could keep it up for another year maybe?
16:10
but at great personal cost
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:10 PM
that's actually really impressive
16:10
HAHA
Avatar
I would spend a lot of time optimizing when I could be adding features
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:11 PM
So, to start with why we'd slash: slashing is the stick to the carrot of rewards.
Avatar
ops headaches etc
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:11 PM
In this model you'd slash some of the staked balance of the owner
16:12
Some protocols use correlated slashing, which will penalize you if you go down while others are down
16:12
this is designed to make sure folks run their validators on diverse infra
16:12
not all AWS US EAST 1
Avatar
ok, that's good to know
16:12
a bit hard to prove, though
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:12 PM
yeah we build around that stuff at the time at Bison Trails
16:12
wdym
Avatar
that it's hard to prove?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:13 PM
that they went offline at the same time? (edited)
Avatar
you'd need the downtime to be equally visible to all of the other consensus group members
16:13
but that's not impossible
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:13 PM
well, maybe
16:14
eth2 has a 180 day slashing lookback clause
16:14
so they'll retroactively impose slashing
16:14
obviously a massive team over there, but point being you can have more than one slashing event for a downtime incident
16:15
event 1: you are offline for more than X
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:15 PM
event 2: you and 20% of the network was offline for X time as well, slash more
Avatar
so people are OK with the idea that someone will do this in a non-automated way and intervene later?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:15 PM
generally speaking yes
Avatar
that's good to know
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:15 PM
because all the data is on-chain
16:15
for uptime, etc
16:16
so it's provable, goes to a vote, boom
16:16
we don't work a lot like eth, but there is some of that information there
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:16 PM
i mean there are protocols that have reversed slashing
Avatar
we could add more
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:16 PM
there was a major outage on a protocol that slashed a competitor of ours
16:16
and the protocol refunded them
16:17
the consensus of the community was it was still early days and so the penalty should be forgiven
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:18 PM
so just some ideas, it would be really bad for the whole validator network (or a major part) to go down with a cloud provider
16:20
we take action like that on the current network
16:20
if I felt that I could trust people to tell me where their hardware lived, I'd do the same here
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:21 PM
totally
Avatar
there's already a light form of slashing there
Avatar
People will do what’s easiest for them
16:21
Like run 5 nodes on one instance (edited)
Avatar
in that you will be ejected early if you're down
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:21 PM
yeah, right, so
16:21
i mean, at bison trails, we do a ton for resiliency
16:22
we can bring up a new node on any protocol in under 2 minutes, automatically
16:22
but making sure we don't double sign blocks, which is a slash-able event, took a lot of engineering work
Avatar
I'm sure
16:23
that's not possible here, but I take your meaning
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:23 PM
cloud HSMs are amazing
16:23
yes
Avatar
amazingly expensive
16:23
a grand a year for amazon, with some extremely handwavy latency numbers
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:24 PM
Yeah but its' blockchain so yolo on the latency 🙂
16:24
you should see what we have to do for Cosmos/Tendermint and hardware HSMs
Avatar
you need to sign a lot
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:24 PM
oh boy oh boy that's a process
16:25
but yeah, im so excited about this
💯 1
16:25
thanks for talking all this through
Avatar
I really want to learn more about what's out there
16:25
I'm probably the least crypto savvy person at the company
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:26 PM
i mean, a ton of the Bison Trails staff hadn't worked in blockchain before
16:26
its just another thing to learn
16:27
I don't want to underthink it
16:27
for me personally it's something that's sitting between me and some interesting work
Avatar
You’re really Learning human incentives lol (edited)
Avatar
I don't want to rush through it because I'm impatient
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:28 PM
hahahha yes, i get that. I mean one interesting way to think about helium is that it's actually got built-in inflation
16:28
and i know we think about the halving as the opposite of that
16:28
but until DCs burned per moth meets or exceeds minting, it's inflationary
16:29
so everything one does that earns rewards decreases their personal rate of inflation
Avatar
but post-halving there's HNT recycling
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:29 PM
yeah, so a way to think about PoS networks is
16:29
if every single token participated, there would be 0 real inflation
16:30
even with validators getting rewards, so on, if everyone is going up by 5% per year, inflation is effectively 0
16:30
so, that's the reason I'm concerned about security token holders monopolizing the validator network. IMO that's a huge huge potential problem
Avatar
so they what, overstake to the point where no one else is getting elected reliably?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:31 PM
Yeah exactly, and because they're earning 30% of the HNT + 6% rewards... well you get the idea
16:32
there's only more hotspots coming online, so HNT-per-hotspot drops (even if real-world value increaes)
16:32
plus, when we move to lite clients, those have to talk to Validators, yeah? And they'll take a fee for that
16:33
its not concern about security token holders making lots of money, i'm cool with that, it's the about of control they end up having
16:33
Even if you trust the sub captain 100%, there are still two missile keys
Avatar
yeah, I understand the concern
16:35
but I imagine it would be hard for them to act fully in concert
16:35
I doubt that any of them could do it alone
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:37 PM
for sure
16:37
a radical proposal would be the stake on a validator must be over 50% non-security-token derived
16:38
i haven't thought though that enough to really suggest it
Avatar
that would be difficult to prove
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/13/2021 4:38 PM
it would, yes
16:38
but, i mean, its totally traceable
16:38
any old archival node could do that
16:39
anyway im signing off for the night
Avatar
Out of curiosity do you think the current miners won’t be able to validate blocks for much longer if it’s the only thing they did? I understand a lot of the overhead is from HBBFT.. Other random thought, the whole block needs to be validated at once or could it be done in pieces? (This wouldn’t be to sign the block of course)
Avatar
there are a lot of things going on there
18:37
the real trouble right now is how so many nodes are natted
18:37
but scaling will continue to push against the boundaries
Avatar
Deleted User 01/13/2021 7:14 PM
Can we get a channel for building validator nodes?
👍 1
Avatar
I'll make one later
19:35
I haven't even made a start on the code
19:36
we'll spin up a channel with the testnet
Avatar
Deleted User 01/13/2021 7:39 PM
Okay 👌
Avatar
I was reading up on how eth2 intends on using PoS and attesting gave me an idea that seems kinda interesting. I’ll be diving into the source code shortly but thought I’d ask first to see if it even was possible..
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 4:34 AM
you mean with shards?
Avatar
Well they want to use the validators that aren’t actively validating to attest the blocks created by the active validators. They talk about having 64 shard chains that are synchronized with a beacon chain (but the chain part seems out of scope for helium) I’m more interested in the attesting part and how it could provide 51% attack protection
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 7:04 AM
yeah, but the use case of eth2 is super different, right? (edited)
07:05
Helium's blockchain is asked to do far less at this stage
Avatar
the model is so different
08:05
every node will be "actively validating" all the time, but I don't think these are actually equivalent
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
its not concern about security token holders making lots of money, i'm cool with that, it's the about of control they end up having
There has been discussion about giving POC'ers (ie: the Current Network Providers) some influence on CG. I think that we should be thinking of follow-on HIPs that enable that
Avatar
yeah, it's important to remember this is just a starting point
09:13
the hope here is to arrive at a good base design to build on for the future, not to get it right for all time
09:14
getting it relatively right is important; it will be harder to iterate once many actors are involved
09:14
but perfect is as always the enemy of good
Avatar
Just to clarify a bit, I’m not suggesting to copy the exact structure of eth2. However, a feature they mentioned sparked an idea about how to strength the model we currently are proposing. They call it attesting (attestation) which allows a second check to occur. My thoughts were to have the non-light hotspots be able too attest a validator if the hotspot agrees with the validator than good if it doesn’t and enough doesn’t than they can be marked ineligible for future election or something similar.
09:22
Also this isn’t a feature that needs to ship with v1 but if built with the intentions of it would suffice to add later. I’m thinking that the blockchain randomly can select hotspots on the network to “attest” a recent validators block. In doing so they are second checking the validators ability to generate blocks. If enough gateways find that the block wasn’t correct than the validator could be slashed. If it does the attesting hotspots (gateways) would split that slash amount for attesting the validator and finding a bad one. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
louis
There has been discussion about giving POC'ers (ie: the Current Network Providers) some influence on CG. I think that we should be thinking of follow-on HIPs that enable that
I agree with this. While many other projects rely on pure proof of stake for security, Helium can go further than that to have an even better security model
09:46
But that probably makes sense for a future HIP and not complicating this one
09:47
The way I think it could be done is to approve this HIP as is and then in a future HIP add in a CG "score" which is based on (1) reliability of the validator + (2) how much proof of coverage is delegated to that validator. Defining this function will be difficult and I think it is reasonable to put that off as a future HIP (edited)
09:48
that future HIP can also include some slashing conditions
Avatar
Yea that makes sense.... move the CG off of Hotspots, enableing light gateways in the future and future improvements to PoS/Validators
Avatar
yeah, this is key. not having to tune for a raspi3 with 800MB of usable ram will enable a lot (edited)
10:01
the one element of slashing that I think could make it in is election downtime slashing, if we can figure out how to limit collateral damage to other candidates
Avatar
Avatar
evan
yeah, this is key. not having to tune for a raspi3 with 800MB of usable ram will enable a lot (edited)
800GB 👀
🤣 1
10:03
on coffee #1 still
Avatar
Since the group is large, you can tell who's likely the candidate that is down and to be slashed
10:04
And like @Austin|Solana mentioned, you do some type of retroactive slashing which puts it out to a vote of some sort
Avatar
eh, it's not trivial
Avatar
But the goal there is to make sure block times stay constant right?
10:05
If a candidate is unresponsive, can he just be skipped and another one brought in?
10:05
If you don't want to introduce slashing yet
10:06
Instead of slashing, it's kind of like a timeout until x groups later
Avatar
elections happen asynchronously to the chain
10:09
they use the chain as a timer, and submit election proofs into the existing group
10:10
what's difficult is proving that a particular validator is the reason an election failed
Avatar
Can you use p2p to help with that?
Avatar
it's not getting the state
10:36
so like, one could submit a partially signed election txn, and the non-signers could get slashed, but everyone would need to countersign the partial
10:37
then if that actually eventually completed, you could refund or counterslash?
10:37
but that leads to gamesmanship, counterslashing
Avatar
Deleted User 01/14/2021 11:25 AM
Will delegation be built into this?
Avatar
again, not at first, no matter which definition you use
11:27
there are just too many open questions to build it quickly
Avatar
Deleted User 01/14/2021 11:31 AM
The thing that I like most about this HIP is that it's from the engineers themselves.
Avatar
I am wondering about the value of a warm-up period for the sake of marking the switch to validators as a big event and rewarding those that put-up initially. Basically, what if we say by block B, as long as we have V (100?) validators, we switch to Validator-Based Consensus. Stakes that are not in by block B are subject to a warm-up of W blocks. I imagine a period of 2 weeks prior to block B would be sufficient for people to get their stakes in line, for example. In effect, this means that the stakes in by block B will create a group with fixed probabilities for at least W blocks, thus reaping the rewards of CG amongst themselves. This is their reward for committing early. As people add stakes after block B, they wait for W blocks to elapse for their stake to warm-up and then it affects the CG selection probabilities. This discourages people from "wait and see" but instead commit themselves or not to staking.
👍 4
Avatar
pharkmillups 01/14/2021 12:45 PM
@louis Have any other projects done this that you know of?
Avatar
I don't recall exactly, but Vechain had something along these lines when I made a node
12:47
Basically, a deadline with a sense of urgency to get a special type of node for staking
Avatar
FWIW: Solana has a 2 day warmup period and a 2 day unbonding period.
Avatar
We are currently discussing cooldown of 250k blocks ~= 5 months
Avatar
I would suggest keeping warm-up and cool-down (bonding/unbonding) within similar timeframes
12:49
like 100k warm up, 250k cool down would "feel right" but I don't know what I'm basing that on
Avatar
Avatar
louis
like 100k warm up, 250k cool down would "feel right" but I don't know what I'm basing that on
Hmm, so it’s a commit of 100K blocks in this example before the next 250K blocks (the cool down) when staking takes effect for rewards?
Avatar
Avatar
timtamothee
Hmm, so it’s a commit of 100K blocks in this example before the next 250K blocks (the cool down) when staking takes effect for rewards?
No, it's more like: "Validator switch is happening at block 600k (assuming we get at least 100 staked). Get your stake in before or else if you put it in at 600,001, you wait til block 700,001 before your added/new stake matters"
12:53
the warm-up would persist, but we would basically forgo the warm-up during the big switch event at block 600k (edited)
Avatar
If you put the stake in at 699,999 would you have to wait until 700,001 or 799,999 after the big switch?
Avatar
You don’t want too long a warmup period though. Warm up and cool down don’t have to be that close together
Avatar
Avatar
timtamothee
If you put the stake in at 699,999 would you have to wait until 700,001 or 799,999 after the big switch?
if you stake at 699,999, you wait til 799,999
👍 1
12:54
its 100k warm up from whenever you staked
Avatar
Avatar
suprnrdy
You don’t want too long a warmup period though. Warm up and cool down don’t have to be that close together
yea the warm-up and cool-down periods are all magic numbers that i can't argue too much for. you want the warm-up to be meaningful enough to reward the first movers, but not discourage new staking necessarily
Avatar
I definitely like a shorter warm up period since staking is already a 5 month lockup commitment in itself. Would the tokens be locked in during the warm-up period?
Avatar
Yea they should be
12:57
They’re staked
12:57
But not contributing
Avatar
Avatar
timtamothee
I definitely like a shorter warm up period since staking is already a 5 month lockup commitment in itself. Would the tokens be locked in during the warm-up period?
hard to say. i would argue, yes, because otherwise you can stake willy-nilly and cancel out at anypoint. you're just grabbing an "option" to stake
Avatar
At least that’s how it works in other protocols
Avatar
Well removable up until the point of stake (and thus losing the place in line)
Avatar
so minimum stake time ends up being warm-up + cool-down
thumbsup 1
Avatar
Yea once you stake it’s locked in
12:58
Warm up period before being able to join concensus
Avatar
Avatar
timtamothee
Well removable up until the point of stake (and thus losing the place in line)
i think if you can cancel out during warm-up, it removes the importance
👍 1
12:58
the point is your committing your HNT to the network
Avatar
The unstaking removes you from being in cg and you wait the cool down period
Avatar
Basically, I think without this warm-up and block cut off, there's a form of "waiting to see what others do". You put the minimum you can in to try to get some influence, but you're not incentivized to put up strongly. You see how it goes after the switch and maybe pile it on progressively til you min/max your return.
👍 1
Avatar
"removes you from being eligible for cg"
Avatar
timtamothee 01/14/2021 1:04 PM
Definitely like it. I think it will help make sure that those who are most committed to staking get their stakes in first
Avatar
I just don't see what value it provides
13:05
psychological value?
Avatar
Deleted User 01/14/2021 1:05 PM
Clout
Avatar
first movers incentive
Avatar
timtamothee 01/14/2021 1:06 PM
I do think that if it's a long warm-up period such as 50 or 100k blocks that it may turn some people away from staking though. But definitely something that would be up for discussion
Avatar
I feel like a month is too long, if we do this
Avatar
Avatar
evan
psychological value?
yes almost purely
Avatar
in the early days, I'd prefer growth
👍 1
Avatar
it creates a sense of urgency and encourages early commitment from stakers. basically, i hope it increases the original amount staked
Avatar
not sure I want to put any hurdles in anyone's way
Avatar
Avatar
evan
not sure I want to put any hurdles in anyone's way
timtamothee 01/14/2021 1:09 PM
Agreed. Not too big of a hurdle, but enough to make sure that the staker is committed and I think it would increase the initial amount of staking if there is a warm-up period versus not having one
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:09 PM
Yeah, again I do think it's worth looking at HNT distribution by wallet
13:09
because that can be used as a proxy for who gets in the active set
13:09
I know i talked about this a bunch yesterday so don't want to beat a dead horse
Avatar
that's likely to be quite expensive
13:10
remember we're doing some of this analysis every 30 minutes
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:10 PM
I guess part of this is, with a migration to PoS is Helium a decentralized blockchain network, or a decentralized gateway network?
13:11
the second is not inherently bad, its just a design paradigm question.
Avatar
given the definitions I'm working with, I'm not sure it's a coherent question
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:12 PM
Sure sorry let me clarify
13:12
right now Helium is radio-dencentralized and node-decentralized
13:13
with a PoS migration, that radio decentralization will remain obviously, but as hotspots turn into gateways and not actual full nodes, the topology of the network changes. I have concerns launching PoS without delegation will consolidate validator power with security token holders, with potentially no actual hotspot owners running validators in the active set
13:14
just from a pure standpoint, they own 1/3rd of the HNT, and there aren't THAT many of them.
Avatar
I think that this is a potential outcome, sure, I'm just not sure that it's something to be worried about
13:14
there are two roles here, as I see it
💯 1
13:15
running servers, and finding places to put hotspots
13:15
I'd like to make it possible for people to specialize
13:15
and, frankly, professionalize
😂 1
👍 2
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:15 PM
Totally but... the way the network has evolved keeps benefiting investors disproportionally.
Avatar
I mean, that's capitalism
13:16
not to be glib or anything
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:16 PM
I mean sure but the fact security tokens keep minting is actually very rare in blockchain
13:16
for any fixed supply protocol
13:17
It's basically unheard of - I think if Helium is okay with investors running all the validators, you should consider a more radical change to security tokens, and make them only mint if staked
13:17
that would create the specialization incentives you're talking about
13:18
it would incentives security token holders to run professional validators with high uptime and high reliability, because their continued earnings would be tied to it
Avatar
I cannot speak to our investors or our legal leeway to change anything about the HST structure and returns of the chain
13:18
@capcom ?
Avatar
also seems a bit out of scope for validators? 🤷
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:19 PM
It's actually not though
13:19
I don't know I disagree here - validators is a fundamental change to the network.
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
I mean sure but the fact security tokens keep minting is actually very rare in blockchain
Not sure how it’s substantially different from an equivalent premine, especially now with a fixed cap? Which is what every other network does. We just thought the HST model was actually better aligned in terms of incentive over time
13:20
If you’d rather we just print ourselves half the HNT like every other network we could do that instead 😬
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:21 PM
So, in Polkadot or another fixed supply protocol, theres an initial token grant to investors, and in order for them to continue earning rewards (inflation) they need to run validators
Avatar
what was their token grant relative to the total supply?
Avatar
I think that enough of our investors are traditional VCs that they are not likely to do that
Avatar
See the blue part? Those are the insider coins retail will never access until they're dumped on you. Might as well add the pink part too, since most treasuries are "on-chain governance" insider controlled anyway. The Ethereum killers are toothless. Distribution is everything.
Likes
303
13:23
Some of these are just egregious
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:23 PM
yep
Avatar
But no one seems to mind
13:24
Earning a diminishing 35% over time seems wildly more equitable than any of these structures
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:25 PM
Avatar
imo it stops shrinking too high
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:25 PM
so with Polkadot, today, the rewards have outstripped the initial token grants
Avatar
I suspect that it will need to be revisited at some point once we're mostly recycling
13:26
but that's a million years from now
13:26
(in internet time)
Avatar
It’s definitely interesting that people seem to view the mining share model as worse than the premine. I wasn’t expecting that. Premine would have been vastly easier from a tax and allocation perspective. No good deed goes unpunished as they say
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:27 PM
Well, with an unlimited supply as the original helium model, it was kind of the only option right?
Avatar
We could have premined an arbitrary amount
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:28 PM
I'm just saying what happens now on Polkadot, and other networks, in VCs run validators to earn participation rewards and keep their pro-rata particpation
13:28
This effort means they are doing valuable work for the network - block producing
👍 1
Avatar
Yea I don’t hate it. More of a generalized rambling
13:28
We’d do it anyway of course
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:28 PM
So, going forwards, we NEED validators for Helium to continue existing
13:29
We're talking about reallocating 6% of HNT minted for validators - okay, sure, but if investors are the only ones running them, and delegation isn't enabled... you see what im saying
13:30
in a delegation (3rd party staking to a validator) system, I can at least put my tokens to work and earn some rewards
Avatar
why wouldn't someone else open staking to other investors?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:30 PM
e.g. i don't own enough CELO to run a validator, but I delegate mine to Bison Trails. They take ~8% of the rewards earned by my tokens
13:31
Understanding blockchain token delegation and how to get involved
13:31
(im bias)
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
We're talking about reallocating 6% of HNT minted for validators - okay, sure, but if investors are the only ones running them, and delegation isn't enabled... you see what im saying
I’d correct this to say that 6% has always been allocated to block production though. That it was done somewhat magically just makes it feel like a reallocation
Avatar
well, it's a reallocation if, as he says, validation is completely dominated by HST holders
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:32 PM
exactly
Avatar
but many HST holders also run hotspots
Avatar
Well sure. I’m just not sure why that would be true
Avatar
so I'm not sure that it's 100% clear
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:33 PM
Because if there's an active set cap, likely based on stake
13:33
and the highest HNT wallet holders are all invetors
Avatar
active set?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:33 PM
maximum number of validators
Avatar
I’d argued that HST holders are the least likely to run validators in our case
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:33 PM
Why?
Avatar
because most of them are not technically savvy money people
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:34 PM
Capcom 95% of vcs that invest in PoS blockchains take their tokens and run their own validators
👍 2
Avatar
Because they are institutional VCs with hundreds or thousands of portfolio companies and don’t know how to
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:34 PM
A huge number of them are our customers at Bison Trails
13:34
they pay us to do all the work for them
Avatar
@Austin|Solana coin VCs or real VCs?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:35 PM
both
Avatar
Not all VCs are the same. This is never going to happen at a google ventures, Khosla ventures, etc
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:35 PM
honestly seriously, some even just liquidate part of their rewards and pay the USD fees for their infrastructure
Avatar
Smaller VC sure
Avatar
I'm sure this will happen
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:35 PM
Initialied? Accomplice? Kleiner Perkins? Blockchain Capital?
13:35
Notation?
13:35
USV?
Avatar
but is that actually a problem? can they actually dominate?
Avatar
USV would
Avatar
are any of those our investors?
13:36
other than USV
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:36 PM
I'm just saying when there's money to be made, they'll make it
13:36
and everyone i named uses bt infra (edited)
13:37
and there's a lot more who are not public i can't name
Avatar
the real question is: can they usefully dominate, and under what circumstances
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:38 PM
Right - indeed that's a good question
Avatar
because you keep circling this point, give me something I can model
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:38 PM
and that really really depends on how validators are designed
Avatar
I have sim code ready to go
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:38 PM
Hahah great - okay so let's say you want 100 validators
13:38
And you have to own all your HNT in a wallet to stake it
13:38
Who are the top 200 wallets?
13:39
What percentage of them are not security token holders?
Avatar
I don't care? make up a doomsday scenario?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:40 PM
Well what's the point of this HIP then?
13:41
if it's something that'll only be available to security token holders... its not relevant to anyone else
Avatar
you said yourself that 10k isn't hard to put together
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:42 PM
Indeed, the question is whats the break even point
13:42
infra cost - rewards generated =?
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
if it's something that'll only be available to security token holders... its not relevant to anyone else
I’m joining late but completely lost on this part
Avatar
all depends on HNT prices (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
I’m joining late but completely lost on this part
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:43 PM
Yeah let me clarify, if we have 100 validators and no delegation, then its only available to super high HNT balance wallets, which are all (i think im correct in saying) security token holders
Avatar
there is no cap
13:43
I don't know where you're getting this 100 cap from
Avatar
The number of wallets with 10k+ is substantial, as is the ability to acquire 10k HNT
Avatar
100 is a threshold
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:44 PM
Rewards will be proportional to stake, yeah?
Avatar
And yea, there’s no cap?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:44 PM
wait what
Avatar
that's one of the things we're talking about here
13:44
do we want to allow overstake, how do we want it to effect rewards
13:45
that's the most important open question here
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
Who are the top 200 wallets?
The accounts on the Helium blockchain with the largest balances of HNT and HST
❤️ 1
13:46
So yea if you have a cap of validators that would be bad. But no one is proposing that (edited)
Avatar
my rough modeling (without overstake) suggests that validation gets kind of economically rocky at 1500 validators given current prices
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:47 PM
Yeah, that's fair
Avatar
I suspect that a lot of people will have an even lower pain threshold
13:47
at least if prices stay similar
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:47 PM
So, imo, this is why slashing goes well with rewards. Otherwise you're incentivizing people to run cheapest infra possible
Avatar
I suspect that people on awful systems will see their rewards not be great
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:48 PM
So, let's say after 1500 it's not worth it
13:48
that's 15m hnt if 10k per
Avatar
remember that you have to stay in the group to get rewards, and you get removed early if you suck
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:49 PM
the balance of the top two wallets is 15m
Avatar
Those are Binance.US and Binance
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:49 PM
now those are probably exchnages
13:49
yes lol
13:50
But a halfway decent technical person would distribute their tokens across maybe 500 validators
13:50
and... chances are... they'll run them all in the same AWS zone
13:50
will that happen? I have no idea. Is it a real risk? yes
Avatar
like I said
13:50
if I could prevent that I would
13:50
but I can't
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:50 PM
correlated slashing
13:50
possibly
Avatar
I can just detect it and call them on the phone
Avatar
I mean, you can if you want to use IP as a factor in block producer election (edited)
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:51 PM
yeah, maybe!
13:51
honestly, that's not a bad solution
Avatar
It’s not hard to know if you’re on aws in the same zone?
Avatar
are the cloud provider IP blocks broken down by AZ?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:51 PM
its super easy yeah
13:51
yeah, we can probably work that in
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:52 PM
that's a really good low-cost-to-implement solution
Avatar
Of course people could vpn etc but then it’s dicey in terms of performance and rewards
Avatar
no one is going to do that for 400 machines just to colocate them in one AZ
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:52 PM
yeah you still run into human-failure risks
Avatar
if they're going to that effort, they'd just move the machine to a different az
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:53 PM
one other possible solution is one wallet can only stake to one validator (edited)
Avatar
too easy to circumvent
13:53
lots of incentive to do so
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:53 PM
yeah, im thinking about a situation where someone's AWS account gets hacked
Avatar
Yea there’s no Sybil resistance there at all
Avatar
the owning wallet won't be on the machine
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:54 PM
so at Bison Trails we have a rule we wont' run more than 33% of the active stake
Avatar
or if it is, you kind of deserve to lose your shirt
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:54 PM
because after 33% we could theoretically cause block productions to falter, if someone hacked us
13:54
and we run 15 region across 3 cloud providers
Avatar
yeah, it would be about the same for us
Avatar
select count(*) from account_inventory where balance >= 1000000000 and security_balance = 0 > 5518
13:56
There are over 5k accounts with 0 HST balance that could run a validator @Austin|Solana
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:57 PM
I mean, they still might be owned by HST holders, but yes 🙂
13:57
we need archival nodes to trace them 😛
Avatar
If only there was a way to acquire HNT
🤔 1
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 1:57 PM
yeah i mean i could run a number of validators and i def would
13:58
just wanna say im very excited about this and i think it's the right network direction
👍 1
Avatar
select count(*) from account_inventory where balance >= 1000000000 and security_balance = 0 and last_block > (select max(height) from blocks) - 300; > 3504
13:58
At least 3504 of them are actively mining, so those are almost definitely not HST people
witness 1
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 2:00 PM
So Polkadot has something called Managed Controllers
14:00
A lot of folks use them to dynamcially re-allocate their stake to validators, so their nodes remain in the profitable validator set
14:01
I feel like folks would build that for Helium, except it woudl be based on hnt price and rewards rate
Avatar
How Sybil resistant is that? Do delegators pick from a list of preferred validators to begin? Or does the controller do that?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 2:02 PM
Bison Trails’ managed controllers allow large-scale DOT holders to run validators on the Bison Trails platform or delegate to our staking-as-a-service nodes to easily manage Polkadot delegation as network dynamics change.
Avatar
Ah great resource
14:03
So this is essentially like "stake pools" if I'm understanding correctly, with a few minor differences
Avatar
my feeling is that we should allow overstake, but we should either cap it, or subject it to extreme diminishing returns
Avatar
Fixing it isn’t bad either. May have the fewest downsides
Avatar
my expectation is that we'll see rapid growth in the size of the pool until returns start to drop noticably
14:11
then overstaking will happen to try and bring node profitability back up
Avatar
@Austin|Solana You seem concerned that HST holders will "dominate" CG. I have 2 questions for you on that. (1) Why do you think that will happen when HST holders have a minority of the HNT out there? If when you split out Helium Inc, HST investors have ~20-25% of HNT and many of them (eg: Google Ventures) are extremely unlikely to stake IMO. Of the HST holders I think only Helium Inc, Multicoin, and USV will stake. (2) If HST holders do stake their HNT and join consensus, what is your concern? That they will start to censor transactions? Why would they do that and reduce the value of their holdings? Full disclosure: my firm is an investor in HST (edited)
Avatar
I feel like the fact that we're talking about thousands of HNT per month for early movers will be enough incentive without warm up
14:15
er
14:15
someone deleted a comment about warmup
Avatar
warmup seems like a cool idea but I don't think we need it to be honest
14:17
I think the returns to staking HNT in the HIP as written are quite attractive
Avatar
the only real value that I have been able to see is that you'd be able to see a flooding attack coming
Avatar
and we have many long term holders in this community who would stake
14:17
what is a flooding attack?
14:17
is that a 51% attack?
Avatar
if someone suddenly staked 1000 spots in an attempt to do a takeover, you'd have some time to respond
Avatar
to stake 1000 spots, they would need to acquire 10M HNT
14:18
it would be very hard to acquire that much HNT
14:18
it seems unlikely in the extreme
14:18
unless someone cracked one of the big HST holder's keys
Avatar
even the biggest HST holder wallet has ~4M HNT in it
14:19
I know
Avatar
POS gets security through participation. The more HNT we have staked, the harder it is to attack the network
Avatar
I'm just trying to think of what it buys you
14:20
so you get some time buffering for one extremely unlikely attack
14:20
and some psychological benefits
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
warmup seems like a cool idea but I don't think we need it to be honest
all else equal, I anticipate that warm-up will front-load stakers to get themselves in before "block B" from an economic/game-theory perspective
Avatar
I don't really see a scenario where someone buys 10M HNT to try and attack the network by censoring transactions. Even if they pulled that off, we would fork them off and start over from the block right before the attack and coordinate to move all the gateways to the new network. It would be annoying and hard but we could do it
14:21
So an attacker is guaranteed to lose. There is no scenario where an attack is EV positive given the threat of a fork from the honest actors (edited)
Avatar
basically
Avatar
Avatar
louis
all else equal, I anticipate that warm-up will front-load stakers to get themselves in before "block B" from an economic/game-theory perspective
the return to staking is so high that I don't think we will have shortage of people wanting to stake. For example, if there are 10M HNT staked that would mean a 36% annualized return for staking (edited)
Avatar
Maybe increase the threshold for minimum number of stakers instead of a warmup period if there is a concern of an attach
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
louis
all else equal, I anticipate that warm-up will front-load stakers to get themselves in before "block B" from an economic/game-theory perspective
I somehow don't think that we'll have a ton of issues finding stakers
Avatar
my point isn't that we won't meet the threshold
14:24
its just the psychology is that a deadline like that with a W block lockout for new stakers encourages people to put up or shut up
14:25
otherwise i dip my toes and eat away at CG profit
14:25
i wait and see what happens and then ease myself into it
14:26
all else equal, the more HNT we can get to lock itself up into validators is good for long term growth
Avatar
at 100, you're earning roughly 3k HNT a month
14:26
I suspect that people will want a slice of that
Avatar
Avatar
evan
at 100, you're earning roughly 3k HNT a month
even without deadlines, i doubt we are at less than 200 (edited)
14:27
its just people get to chomp at that slice with little risk without warm-up
Avatar
I don't see it
Avatar
Avatar
evan
someone deleted a comment about warmup
I was typing up notes while catching up on the discussion at which point I prematurely entered.. wanted to be caught up before beating the same dead horse. haha What will the election size be for the first election? If 100 is required but the election is only 16 it’s a little different than if the election size is 100. I think that a warm-up period shouldn't last longer than a week (1440 blocks) however I do think that having a founding period (45K? blocks = 1 month) to incentives action sooner and would result in a more consistent reward payout for the initial month. @louis (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
I was typing up notes while catching up on the discussion at which point I prematurely entered.. wanted to be caught up before beating the same dead horse. haha What will the election size be for the first election? If 100 is required but the election is only 16 it’s a little different than if the election size is 100. I think that a warm-up period shouldn't last longer than a week (1440 blocks) however I do think that having a founding period (45K? blocks = 1 month) to incentives action sooner and would result in a more consistent reward payout for the initial month. @louis (edited)
we'll keep increasing the group size for a while
14:29
probably not all at once
14:29
but, it doesn't matter
14:29
returns are 100% based on active pool size
14:29
(holding overstake equal for the moment)
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
I was typing up notes while catching up on the discussion at which point I prematurely entered.. wanted to be caught up before beating the same dead horse. haha What will the election size be for the first election? If 100 is required but the election is only 16 it’s a little different than if the election size is 100. I think that a warm-up period shouldn't last longer than a week (1440 blocks) however I do think that having a founding period (45K? blocks = 1 month) to incentives action sooner and would result in a more consistent reward payout for the initial month. @louis (edited)
I like this founding period angle. It’s similar to what I’m proposing but less permanent. My main argument for a warm up is to encourage people to stake at validator launch
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
the return to staking is so high that I don't think we will have shortage of people wanting to stake. For example, if there are 10M HNT staked that would mean a 36% annualized return for staking (edited)
^^can someone walk me through the math here
Avatar
If you have only 16% max participation per epoch it's a little different reward split than 100%. For example, you could score 13HNT per epoch at the 16 member size per epoch if you get in which if in current kickout method is a smaller percentage than 16%... where's 100% of the 100 would mine 2HNT per epoch for the entire warmup period..
Avatar
the math just doesn't work that way
14:31
if it's random it's random
14:32
we won't go to 100%
Avatar
^ that's what I'm saying. One is a more consistent payout vice random is all
Avatar
so stake return is proportional to the number of validators you've staked and how big the pool is
14:32
I doubt that we could scale to 100 off the bat in any case
Avatar
My hotspot has been lucky enough to hit CG once where I've seen people in for 20 rounds.
Avatar
i think i got it nvm
Avatar
we will see less variance with validators
14:33
I have to step away
Avatar
5mm * .06 / # of validators
14:33
dur
Avatar
Just saying for the founding period or warm up based on what louis is suggesting a more consistent payout would be ideal (edited)
Avatar
it's code that exists and will need to be maintained in perpetuity
14:34
I just don't think that it's worth the effort for this small benefit
💯 1
Avatar
I also wanted to note that if implemented there would need to be a slashing mechanism to minimize the HST fears stated also.
Avatar
please lay your fears out in detail with numbers
Avatar
However, I am leaning towards your view on the work vs reward
14:38
To be honest, in my opinion if a warm-up is implemented or not there should still be a second check just to ensure no possible way of all the "HST investors" or any bad actor the ability to join hands and take over all validation which could result in harm to the network (edited)
14:40
I still find the "attesting" approach interesting
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
To be honest, in my opinion if a warm-up is implemented or not there should still be a second check just to ensure no possible way of all the "HST investors" or any bad actor the ability to join hands and take over all validation which could result in harm to the network (edited)
What are you worried the HST investors will do?
Avatar
Oh that was an example based on the above conversation. I'm simply wanting to protect against a 51% attack from anyone
14:43
While just ensuring blockchain integrity in general
Avatar
For what it's worth, I think a 51% attack on Helium would be a really bad idea for the attacker. They couldn't do anything other than censor transactions and there is no incentive to censor transactions. And if they were censoring transactions, we could fork them out. So there doesn't seem to be any way to make money on a 51% attack (edited)
Avatar
Not clear to me how your suggestion would do that?
Avatar
Doesn't an HST holder have an incentive not to censor transactions and potentially disrupt the network (making it lose its fundamental value)?
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
@Austin|Solana You seem concerned that HST holders will "dominate" CG. I have 2 questions for you on that. (1) Why do you think that will happen when HST holders have a minority of the HNT out there? If when you split out Helium Inc, HST investors have ~20-25% of HNT and many of them (eg: Google Ventures) are extremely unlikely to stake IMO. Of the HST holders I think only Helium Inc, Multicoin, and USV will stake. (2) If HST holders do stake their HNT and join consensus, what is your concern? That they will start to censor transactions? Why would they do that and reduce the value of their holdings? Full disclosure: my firm is an investor in HST (edited)
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 2:45 PM
to reply to your message before, without delegation they don't need to be a majority, just have the largest balances, which they definetly do. The design currently is only one wallet could stake to validator
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Not clear to me how your suggestion would do that?
Where hotspots that aren't light-gateways could retroactively audit the performance of a validator resulting in slashing if there's enough of other hotspots agreeing (number to be determined).
Avatar
I think a lot of the economic problems raised so far are solved with diminishing returns for overstake. (or just capping overstake) (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
For what it's worth, I think a 51% attack on Helium would be a really bad idea for the attacker. They couldn't do anything other than censor transactions and there is no incentive to censor transactions. And if they were censoring transactions, we could fork them out. So there doesn't seem to be any way to make money on a 51% attack (edited)
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 2:46 PM
51% doesn't apply to PoS, but usually 33% is enough to cause the block production to start having issues (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
Where hotspots that aren't light-gateways could retroactively audit the performance of a validator resulting in slashing if there's enough of other hotspots agreeing (number to be determined).
I don’t think there will be (or should be) hotspots that aren’t light
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
51% doesn't apply to PoS, but usually 33% is enough to cause the block production to start having issues (edited)
This really depends on the consensus protocol
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
to reply to your message before, without delegation they don't need to be a majority, just have the largest balances, which they definetly do. The design currently is only one wallet could stake to validator
I don't understand what you mean by this?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 2:47 PM
Sure, the current proposal is for non-pooled validators. That means all the stake must come from one wallet
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
Sure, the current proposal is for non-pooled validators. That means all the stake must come from one wallet
a staking as a service company like Bison Trails can spin up many validators. One per wallet
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 2:48 PM
Yes, just not profitably if overstake goes through. that was the context of the conversation
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
I don’t think there will be (or should be) hotspots that aren’t light
There will be a few (>15k) hotspots on the chain that will be sitting there with a lot of auditing capabilities that might be interested in earning some HNT directly out of the pockets of potential bad actors? If an "attempt" at gaming or providing bad performing validators just to get more HNT because once started the rewards will be insane for the first year or so
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
Yes, just not profitably if overstake goes through. that was the context of the conversation
I don't think running the validators will be that expensive
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 2:50 PM
at 'fixed stake' validators (10,000 HNT for example, and no rewards for additional stake) the number of validators would fluctuate with the price of HNT
14:50
per evan's math, that's the break even point at ~$1.50 per hnt
14:51
he estimated 1500 validators woudl be break even with AWS pricing (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
I don't think running the validators will be that expensive
A $50-100/mo AWS box would do the job
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 2:51 PM
yup
14:51
and with no slashing penalties you don't need redundancy really, so it's super cheap
Avatar
Guessing helium is pretty resource efficient compared to most because we had to run it on the pi
💯 1
👍 1
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 2:52 PM
Yeah its also not... doing much lol
14:52
the blockchain part, obviously the hardware radios do a lot, and the routers, so on (edited)
Avatar
HBBFT has a decent amount of cryptography, especially with 100 in the group
14:53
All the transactions are encrypted unlike most chains
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 2:53 PM
yeah its a great design
Avatar
so i have an excuse to get a Thales HSM?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 2:53 PM
i don't see why lol
Avatar
accelerate the signatures per sec?
14:53
yea honestly, my 32 cores are probs enough
14:54
but i just wanted an excuse to get expensive hardware
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 2:54 PM
Yeah i mean, we deal with yubiHSM 2's for Cosmos, and its a pain
Avatar
decoupling the owner of the validator with the hot validator key is real nice in our case
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 2:55 PM
actually that's a question we haven't talked about
14:55
are validators rewarded for the number of hotspots that chose to talk to them?
14:55
do owners get to chose what validator their hotspot talks to?
Avatar
Sheet1 # of validators,total staked,HNT earned / mo / validator,HNT earned / yr / validator,validator annualized return 10,100,000,30,000,360,000,3600% 20,200,000,15,000,180,000,1800% 30,300,000,10,000,120,000,1200% 40,400,000,7,500,90,000,900% 50,500,000,6,000,72,000,720% 60,600,000,5,000,60,00...
👍 4
14:56
in case anyone cares
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 2:56 PM
I do care, im curious why your numbers are so different from Evan's
Avatar
where are evans?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 2:56 PM
he said break even point with a 10k stake was 1500 validators
14:57
at current market rate
Avatar
idunno. i just used math.
14:57
could be wrong feel free to double check it
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 2:57 PM
wait i think you're missing a rewards quotent
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
are validators rewarded for the number of hotspots that chose to talk to them?
i believe that would be a subject of future HIPs aimed at including hotspots/coverage providers more with the validator model
👍 2
14:58
basically, this HIP sets a lot of groundwork and a "good enough" staking model to tide us over til POC feels good and until light gateway client mechanics can be determined
14:59
at least that's my interpretation
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 2:59 PM
yeah that's reasonable, its just hard to take away things from people
15:00
if that 6% for block production got another variable on it for lite gateways connected, or something
Avatar
Even at the current amount of gateways we have to switch ASAP. Let alone more
Avatar
in my opinion, the "you might get into CG" UBI has to be given up so that we can stop working with the constraints of Raspberry Pis
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 3:01 PM
its also interesting Louis because, all hotspot are not treated equal in terms of rewards, but the proposal here is for all validators to be
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
its also interesting Louis because, all hotspot are not treated equal in terms of rewards, but the proposal here is for all validators to be
they are treated with respect to the rules of POC
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
its also interesting Louis because, all hotspot are not treated equal in terms of rewards, but the proposal here is for all validators to be
Also why the hotspot share is 10x the size, given the purpose of the network and all that
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 3:01 PM
Yeah i obviously don't think hotspots should be rewarded identically (edited)
15:02
Its just an interesting question
Avatar
if every hotspot was given the same "slice" of POC with no actual packets flying, it would hardly seem fair either. While POC isn't perfect, the intent is the right direction
💯 1
Avatar
A better question to ask might be how else you’d propose to compensate the validators? Given that the status quo isn’t an option in our POV
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 3:04 PM
Yeah, its fun to think about Capcom. Generally unequal rewards are a result of proportional stake (higher stake higher rewards) but i wonder if there's.... okay hear me out. Lite gateways talk to validators, but they pick what validators they talk to based on performance metrics of those validators
15:05
And that becomes a variable in the rewards rate - if your validator's performance metrics are worse you'll get fewer gateways talking to you
15:05
The thing I'm thinking about how we prevent is a race-to-the-bottom in validator infrastrucure, as it's so important to the network
15:06
(i tried to apply the spirit of PoC to validators... idk if it worked but yolo)
Avatar
Avatar
Raf
could be wrong feel free to double check it
looks correct to me
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
The thing I'm thinking about how we prevent is a race-to-the-bottom in validator infrastrucure, as it's so important to the network
there are rules already that boot validators. maybe @evan is able to outline them at some point, but what i've understood is poor compute and poor connectivity excludes you from re-election
Avatar
they don't exclude you
15:19
but removal will tank your returns
15:20
math is the same, I didn't mean that breakeven was at 1500, just that pickings get thin around there at current prices
Avatar
what is the development requirement like for this
Avatar
what do you mean?
Avatar
Avatar
evan
but removal will tank your returns
removal you mean you will get removed from CG and "not re-elected"?
Avatar
once the hip is approved - how long would it take the dev team to get this live
Avatar
@louis you can get re selected at the same rate
15:22
just the short sojourn in the group will trash your returns relative to someone at the same staking level
Avatar
or is the timing more dependent on how long it takes to get the minimum required validators
Avatar
Avatar
evan
@louis you can get re selected at the same rate
ok gotcha. you just get booted from your current term
15:23
i guess i always phrased that as "re-elected"
Avatar
@raf testnet period is the big limit
Avatar
i guess a better question is how long would the development take to get to a point where validators can join a testnet
15:23
i see
Avatar
idk, I meant to start today but ran out of time
😆 1
15:25
I don't know when we'll stand up the testnet
15:25
probably not next week
15:27
it isn't all that much technical work
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 3:27 PM
yeah i mean right now my cloud miner is a validator, kind of. (edited)
15:27
if i turn my gateway off
15:28
but count me in for testnet
Avatar
yeah, it's just some snips to the miner code
15:28
but staffing issues might prevent it happening next week
15:29
or even the one after
🔜 2
Avatar
i would also be interested in the testnet if you can put together a staking for dummies tutorial
Avatar
It sounds like if you can familiarize yourself with the miner, you're 90% there. https://developer.helium.com/blockchain/run-your-own-miner
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Raf
i would also be interested in the testnet if you can put together a staking for dummies tutorial
what we're hoping to do is to provide some scripts we're using to stand them up ourselves. likely some ansible, terraform, devops scripts.
Avatar
the plan so far looks like this: I do the changes and spin up a starter testnet. we write a faucet API so people can get stake THNT
Avatar
we'll probably only do it for aws first but i imagine other companies like stakefish or bison trails will also ofter a managed option.
Avatar
Avatar
evan
the plan so far looks like this: I do the changes and spin up a starter testnet. we write a faucet API so people can get stake THNT
not TNT? shucks... (jk)
Avatar
the we run for a while
15:32
I was gonna but worried about confusion
Avatar
People still trade bitcoin testnet tokens
15:33
Even though there is a faucet
Avatar
Traders gonna trade
👍 1
Avatar
everyone wants a return here at the precipice
Avatar
Certainly some convenience value in that the buyer doesn’t have to use the faucet
Avatar
honestly I'll probably just keep the keys and send people stake
15:47
easier than a faucet
15:48
until someone who can web can write one
15:48
or we have enough participants that it doesn't matter (edited)
15:50
the hard part isn't the faucet, it's keeping some spoiler from draining the account for no reason
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Even though there is a faucet
The faucet sucks and it’s so small
18:05
Had to use it for keep and it’s just..slow if you need a meaning full amount to test
18:05
But yea trading testnet doesn’t make sense it just took a while
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
we'll probably only do it for aws first but i imagine other companies like stakefish or bison trails will also ofter a managed option.
What about for folks hoping to run it on their own hardware? We'd love to join the testnet too!
Avatar
Nothing stopping you running it. We’re going to try to publish the scripts we use to show how we run it.
Avatar
"scripts"
19:30
cssh and screen!
😂 1
Avatar
Fish and tmux
Avatar
i love tmux
Avatar
young people, I swear
Avatar
who's young here?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/14/2021 9:35 PM
lol
21:35
i mean Kusama was polkadot's testnet and it's still going strong
21:36
but hard to really parse what that would mean without gateways
Avatar
i don't want to maintain it, and I won't be setting up to be sustainable
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/15/2021 6:23 AM
Agreed! But we could alwayas roll testnet rewards to HNT
06:24
at some discount rate or something
06:29
I think Kusama was supposed to die but there was so much community support it continued
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/15/2021 12:11 PM
Could this solution also combat gaming if the Validator operator wanted it to?
12:16
For example with this HIP the validator is delivering a PoC receipt, checks its own libp2p blacklist, and drops the PoC receipt?
Avatar
yes there will be more cpu for stuff like that, but it's not germane to the hip
12:20
rest assured that anti-gaming is a super high priority for us for the forseeable future
Avatar
I would definitely not want a validator to decide who is blacklisted so that list would/should have to be centralized in some way OR very open about what constitutes gaming...that is ripe for manipulatino
thumbsup 1
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/15/2021 12:59 PM
@Radrob can you expand upon that?
13:00
Generally speaking, validator consensus seems like the least complex way to solve it?
Avatar
if a validator can just choose who to blacklist, why wouldnt they blacklist everyone but their own hotspots
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/15/2021 1:01 PM
On most PoS chains, the validator network reaches consensus about a misbehaving validator and ejects them or slashes them
13:02
in this case, the reporting validator could submit some sort of proof to the rest of the network, and if other validators confirm their findings about that hotspot, ejection could occur?
Avatar
sure, but that requires some kind of proof which would not be an individual blacklist
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/15/2021 1:05 PM
Yeah, I read centralized as helium-controlled not consensus diven
13:06
but yes agree with you there needs to be independent verification, not just one validator
Avatar
they would all need to agree
13:07
you can filter my txns, but right now you need 11 colluding to actually censor me
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/15/2021 1:08 PM
All? seems like something that could be poison pilled
Avatar
censorship requires 2n+1 validators acting in concert and rejecting the input of any non-colluding validators
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
evan
censorship requires 2n+1 validators acting in concert and rejecting the input of any non-colluding validators
so as long as 2n+1 have all denylisted a bad actor, they can censor that actor
13:12
?
13:12
effectively all of them would need to do so
Avatar
bc next CG it could pass?
Avatar
inserting a denylist into the mix will need to be done either 1) very, very carefully, 2) on the ingest side
13:14
if 1), then everyone would need to have the same denylist as part of the protocol (i.e. updating would need to be a txn)
13:14
if 2) then one validator not using denylists in a CG would be enough to cause filtering to fail if the txns hit that one
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/15/2021 1:18 PM
Yeah this is funny because its kind of how a lot of protocols do slashing
13:18
Basically you lock out a validator from earning rewards for a certain period of time
13:18
except here we're doing it on the gateway level
Avatar
the suggestion had nothing to do with validators
13:21
at least that's my recollection
13:24
you could prevent a validator from being elected but it'd be harder
Avatar
Will Helium be the first ever implementation of HBBFT + PoS?
13:42
It's pretty amazing how resilient it's been so far even without any PoS (edited)
Avatar
is anyone else doing hbbft?
13:53
there was some rust chain doing it, right?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/15/2021 1:55 PM
POA Network is doing it but are they real?
Avatar
yeah, them
13:55
no idea
13:55
honestly I don't pay attention to any of this stuff, hence my appeals for help from the community
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/15/2021 1:56 PM
yeah they're pos + hbbft but
13:56
6m market cap
13:56
down from $0.90 a token to $0.021 in two years (edited)
Avatar
POA network seems like a really useful chain for doing side chain development while ETH continues to struggle with high gas fees
14:02
this is totally off-topic so i'll stop there before talking about xDAI and all that 🙂
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/15/2021 2:03 PM
it does! except eth2's sharding killed it, not to mention substrait and cosmos
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Radrob
if a validator can just choose who to blacklist, why wouldnt they blacklist everyone but their own hotspots
Without a majority of validators agreeing this wouldn’t do anything
👍 2
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/15/2021 10:34 PM
nonetheless it is still a very valid way to kick some of the bigger gamers off the network
22:34
especially in the first 100
22:35
will this HIP keep using libp2p? or continue in another direction?
22:36
for p2p comms
22:38
some of the expanded libp2p library may be more effective with more cpu power
Avatar
the plan for now is to change as few things as possible so libp2p will live on the other side of validators.
👍 2
22:42
our expectation is that validators will run on significantly better hardware than the Rasberry Pis and a public IP address on the internet without NAT or firewalls so connectivity between elected validator nodes will be significantly better than the state we're in now.
Avatar
we will start to phase it out over time, most likely
Avatar
I think libp2p should be phased out, I think there might be issues with scaling it.
Avatar
Agreed.. though it’s some specific implementation details of our libp2p that have scaling issues.. unrelated to the more general libp2p out there (just to be clear) (edited)
19:27
With validators the scaling issues will become a lot less first, but I definitely would like to phase it out for simpler schemes once we’re in validator land
Avatar
panagos-o-enas 01/19/2021 3:38 AM
Hi heliumers any news on validator implementation and testing?? How can we participate??
👀 5
Avatar
Wonder if we can fast track this HIP with something less formal than a full community call in a week and a half, @jamiedubs ?
👍 6
07:08
Maybe an informal straw poll. I don’t think I’ve heard any massive disagreements in having validators. Maybe some questions on overstake that still need to be resolved but we can start building ASAP and stand up a testnet quickly.
Avatar
how do you sign up to be a validator?
Avatar
Avatar
simon333
how do you sign up to be a validator?
You stand one up and stake the HNT required.
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
You stand one up and stake the HNT required.
ok great - i will follow the development and onboard when possible 🙂 Thanks for your reply.
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
Wonder if we can fast track this HIP with something less formal than a full community call in a week and a half, @jamiedubs ?
I'm supportive of fast tracking. A couple thoughts on updates to the HIP I would suggest to keep things clean though (i can be very academic about this sort of thing): 1) remove overstake / make it clear that is it not include and defer to a separate HIP, 2) clarify the role of the validator with this HIP is only block production / CG and does not include the other functions that will eventually be needed by light gateways, etc. (unless you are trying to lay it out as a roadmap, however it makes it more complex to understand the HIP)
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
I'm supportive of fast tracking. A couple thoughts on updates to the HIP I would suggest to keep things clean though (i can be very academic about this sort of thing): 1) remove overstake / make it clear that is it not include and defer to a separate HIP, 2) clarify the role of the validator with this HIP is only block production / CG and does not include the other functions that will eventually be needed by light gateways, etc. (unless you are trying to lay it out as a roadmap, however it makes it more complex to understand the HIP)
#1 still feels worthy of discussion. A diminishing returns overstake might be highly valuable to everyone involved. Agree on #2
Avatar
I thought I did OK on #2, given the complexity of future plans, @PaulM can you point out places where it leaks?
07:45
implementation is at like ~20% as of friday EoD
07:46
but it's at the all just typing phase, I expect things to slow down considerably as I pull the work together
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
Maybe an informal straw poll. I don’t think I’ve heard any massive disagreements in having validators. Maybe some questions on overstake that still need to be resolved but we can start building ASAP and stand up a testnet quickly.
Well, even without full community approval can't a testnet be stood up in the mean time? Since, it's more like a utility to the network and not necessarily part of the HIP except as a prerequisite? (edited)
07:49
I think however, that fast tracking would reduce the validity of the HIP process.. If HIP25 can be fast tracked what stops any other HIP from being fast tracked?
Avatar
Fair push back. If the biggest point of contention is the function or removal of overstake, we can have the community call as a check point to use it as a place of discussion of different approaches here.
07:51
I haven’t yet seen an argument against having validators though. That’s the part I’m certain we have rough consensus on.
Avatar
I would agree just my two cents on the HIP process
Avatar
No one has brought up the standard arguments against proof of stake that I was fully expecting to have to defend heh.
Avatar
I like the proposal for how easy it should be to build off of...
07:54
I have my opinions on minimums but there will also be a window to discuss those more in detail prior to the first election too
Avatar
what about warming up and cooling off periods are we sticking with 1 month and 5 month or we need some poll on that too ..
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I thought I did OK on #2, given the complexity of future plans, @PaulM can you point out places where it leaks?
My understand has grown so it is now harder for me to see these. A couple minor tweaks may help: Summary: instead of Validators just being eligible for block production, this is moving block product from hotspots to validators (edited)
Avatar
0 and 5
07:59
ok, I'll add a section clarifying the intention
Avatar
Detailed Explanation: Add a section for the changes to miners/hotspots - i.e. no longer eligible for CG / block production
Avatar
Avatar
Gabru
what about warming up and cooling off periods are we sticking with 1 month and 5 month or we need some poll on that too ..
Decided to go without a warm up period but unbonding period is 5 months approximately
Avatar
@evan and, defining the relationship between block production and consensus group would be helpful since that is the terminology that is more prevalent among hotspot owners
Avatar
yeah, ok
08:02
I did have a section on that originally, but it got dropped with some other changes in revision
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
Wonder if we can fast track this HIP with something less formal than a full community call in a week and a half, @jamiedubs ?
seems fine to me. allow me to dig up my Poll Macro 9000™
09:39
Quick poll: do you support approving HIP25: Validators as written? -> https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/master/0025-validators.md 👍 yes 👎 no ♻️ needs more work (edited)
Helium Improvement Proposals. Contribute to helium/HIP development by creating an account on GitHub.
👍 39
👎 2
♻️ 1
Avatar
We can also call this particular HIP the "validators with no benefit to overstake and no slashing" HIP and then future HIPs could propose overstaking, slashing, warmups, etc.
09:42
I'd certainly like some community direction on overstake. my personal vote there would be to have overstaking with diminishing returns to allow for a proxy to "reputation" of good validators. But we need to have a good argument about what is the decay function and all that. (edited)
Avatar
Deleted User 01/19/2021 9:42 AM
No delegators? RIP noobs
hashc0de pinned a message to this channel. 01/19/2021 9:43 AM
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
No delegators? RIP noobs
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/19/2021 9:59 AM
yeah what happened to the DPoS conversations? Did that sputter out?
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
yeah what happened to the DPoS conversations? Did that sputter out?
It's more of a "what's most important now" question / what's the MVP? Step one, get CG off hotspots. step 2+ improve on validators with slashing, warmup, delegation, etc. (edited)
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/19/2021 10:02 AM
ok then yeah that makes more sense. enhancement but not prerequisite
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
We can also call this particular HIP the "validators with no benefit to overstake and no slashing" HIP and then future HIPs could propose overstaking, slashing, warmups, etc.
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/19/2021 10:02 AM
not sure I agree the same with the overstake point here though
10:02
seems kind of important to consider the consequences of overstake before letting people overstake.
Avatar
right so i'm saying we don't provide any benefit of overstaking with this HIP
10:03
10k HNT or 100k HNT. you're just a validator.
👍 3
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/19/2021 10:03 AM
ahh ok so that makes more sense then
10:04
what would be the purpose of staking more than the minimum then..? lol
10:04
so it's basically just a flat 10k (or whatever is agreed upon) until further HIP(s)
Avatar
nothing at this point
10:04
that's the proposal at least
👍 1
Avatar
so there's no overstake but cool down is still in this MVP?
Avatar
that seems to be the consensus today
Avatar
i think keeping overstake off as "future work" allows us to ship validators faster and improve block production in the near term.
10:06
with 10k hotspots (or more) potentially coming online in the next few months, i think there's value in getting it going sooner rather than later. (edited)
Avatar
one risk / frustration with implementing overstake later is that people who would have possibly overstaked may spin up multiple validators which then lock them into the cool down period once overstake is available
10:08
unless i guess a stake could be transferred as overstake to an existing validator
Avatar
i imagine the economics discussion around warmup, cooldowns, and overstaking can happen in parallel to testnet, so there would be plenty of time to figure that stuff out before launch but at least it would not be a blocker
💯 1
Avatar
I agree that improving block production is extremely important and should be priority #1 for now
👍 3
Avatar
Avatar
louis
i imagine the economics discussion around warmup, cooldowns, and overstaking can happen in parallel to testnet, so there would be plenty of time to figure that stuff out before launch but at least it would not be a blocker
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/19/2021 10:54 AM
so similar to the key issuance discussion from #hip-19-third-party-manufacturers
10:54
seems about right.
Avatar
panagos-o-enas 01/19/2021 1:26 PM
@hashc0de i am interested! How many hnt shall we have available??
Avatar
sorry?
😂 1
Avatar
panagos-o-enas 01/19/2021 1:32 PM
Participation for validators
13:32
@hashc0de
Avatar
Johnny_Cucuzza 01/19/2021 1:38 PM
10k was suggested
Avatar
panagos-o-enas 01/19/2021 1:38 PM
Wow
13:39
@Johnny_Cucuzza will there be interest paid for "staking"?
Avatar
please read the HIP
👍 4
☝️ 1
Avatar
panagos-o-enas 01/19/2021 1:48 PM
@evan just did! I think we can do it but i suppose there will be some guidance?
Avatar
the answer to your question is in the HIP
Troll 1
Avatar
panagos-o-enas 01/19/2021 1:51 PM
@evan so we do everything with guidelines there I was referring to setting uo the hardware mostly
13:52
Up*
Avatar
It's not done yet
14:13
this is just a proposal
👍 1
Avatar
panagos-o-enas 01/19/2021 2:15 PM
That is why i am asking! Thanks for replying@suprnrdy
Avatar
there's no guides as yet
14:16
14:16
@panagos-o-enas ^^
Avatar
panagos-o-enas 01/19/2021 2:17 PM
@evan thanks!! Will take a look!
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/20/2021 8:34 AM
Does this HIP adjust CG size/selection process or will that still be 16 random validators at launch?
Avatar
the hip refers to this. we want to scale the group up as far as possible
08:56
it sounds like we are converging on full random at the start
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/20/2021 1:41 PM
im excited for this!
💯 7
Avatar
Funkyanimal 01/20/2021 4:57 PM
Got 2 VPS's ready to rock n roll.
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
No approval needed to run a validator. Anyone with the HNT, hardware, and know-how will be able to spin one up. It will rely on sufficiently many validators to prevent attack from a malicious actor as well as (eventually/probably) the threat of slashing if you don't behave well to provide security to the network.
👍 1
🙏 1
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/21/2021 12:07 PM
HIP 19 does require verification, I believe
12:08
It's super different
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/21/2021 12:29 PM
yeah that was my other question -- 19 requires KYC; presuming no KYC necessary on validators?
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
No approval needed to run a validator. Anyone with the HNT, hardware, and know-how will be able to spin one up. It will rely on sufficiently many validators to prevent attack from a malicious actor as well as (eventually/probably) the threat of slashing if you don't behave well to provide security to the network.
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/21/2021 12:31 PM
thanks Paul...and is my understanding correct that I've seen it said it's pretty similar technically speaking to running the miner i.e. part of what was involved in the DIY alpha?
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
thanks Paul...and is my understanding correct that I've seen it said it's pretty similar technically speaking to running the miner i.e. part of what was involved in the DIY alpha?
That's how I have understood it...i guess we'll see when it is released. It makes sense since at first it is does mostly what the the miner does without the lora bits.
👍 1
💯 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/21/2021 12:41 PM
hyped to do it 👏
Avatar
@evan so should we avoid any discussion of economics models (overstaking, cool down) in this channel and take it to hip-open?
Avatar
cool down is a part of it
13:28
those seem germane, I guess
Avatar
okay, so I'll voice my proposal. I would be interested in something like this
13:29
the numbers are strawmen, but the idea is that overstaking be done in tiers. once you hit the tier, you're subject to new cool down and you get more "lottery tickets" that scale non-linearly
13:30
so with these numbers, there's no incentive to go beyond 1M HNT. and despite staking 100x you only have 6x the probability compared to the 10k HNT stake
Avatar
too complicated for v1
13:31
imo
Avatar
Avatar
louis
okay, so I'll voice my proposal. I would be interested in something like this
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/21/2021 1:36 PM
Wouldn't everyone just run multiple tier 1's then?
Avatar
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI
Wouldn't everyone just run multiple tier 1's then?
you incur the operational overhead of running a node. both from time and cost
13:37
this lets big accounts pile in their HNT without that
Avatar
my feeling about overstake is that it's too contentious to do as a launch feature
💯 1
13:37
and also will potentially detract from the goal of getting the pool big
Avatar
if that's the case, i do feel like filtering the conversation on that into another channel would be healthy
13:39
i think there are plenty of people in the community that have more an economic focus that would love to start hashing out such proposal without distracting from or slowing down HIP-25 (edited)
13:39
and i do agree that because its economic magic numbers, it does detract a lot from the focus of this HIP
Avatar
I think if I had a million HNT it is not a big deal to run > 6 validator nodes
Avatar
until the pool becomes quite large, overstaking isn't going to make much sense
👍 1
13:44
I'm content to punt it to another hip
13:44
I think that cooldown arguments can be made here
13:44
it's really arbitrary, so if someone has any strong argument for longer/shorter, I'm all ears
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/21/2021 1:48 PM
would it be beneficial to include the static IP & port of the node in the stake_validator txn?
13:51
it'll be a soft requirement at first
13:51
but we will make changes over time that require it
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/21/2021 2:03 PM
This is a great conversation
14:03
My feeling @evan is overstake should be coupled with delegation
14:04
V1 with no bonus for overstake seems quite reasonable to launch a testnet with, and even mainnet
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
Maybe an informal straw poll. I don’t think I’ve heard any massive disagreements in having validators. Maybe some questions on overstake that still need to be resolved but we can start building ASAP and stand up a testnet quickly.
Hey does anyone have an ETA for this HIP?
Avatar
ETA for community approval of the HIP? We have a call coming next week. We have begun initial work around building the code needed here assuming the base bits are non controversial. We are forgoing decisions around overstate for future HIPs
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
ETA for community approval of the HIP? We have a call coming next week. We have begun initial work around building the code needed here assuming the base bits are non controversial. We are forgoing decisions around overstate for future HIPs
https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/798317614879342622/801143517002989650 100% support in this straw poll. If that's not approval I don't know what is
👍 1
Avatar
Fair enough 🙂
18:28
DeWi hasn’t technically called it
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
ETA for community approval of the HIP? We have a call coming next week. We have begun initial work around building the code needed here assuming the base bits are non controversial. We are forgoing decisions around overstate for future HIPs
Awesome thanks 🙏
Avatar
I overestimated how much time I would have to work on it this week
Avatar
once we get this HIP approved and the validators up and running, is the hope to essentially turn all current OG hotspots, rakspots, etc into just gateways? I'm specifically interested from a bandwidth perspective on hoping to use low data rate cell plans for hotspots which use far too much data these days. Or if the block production/CG is taken off of them, are the remaining functions going to be minimal in terms of data transfer compared to what they're using now?
21:39
the main data use is honestly the connection data, and that will go away for light gateways
21:39
they'll only use data when they're challenged, or have packets to pass, a few other small things
Avatar
Avatar
evan
they'll only use data when they're challenged, or have packets to pass, a few other small things
and this is also what will be happening with the OG helium ones and calchip ones, not just the future "light gateway"? I've got my DIY with a cloud miner that only use a few MB a day, and they would roughly turn into this too?
Avatar
that's the intent
21:45
it won't happen quickly
Avatar
awesome. Alright, well I'm ready to spin up my validator once we get this approved then!
Avatar
Avatar
evan
it won't happen quickly
Yea, I know...
Avatar
small team and all that
Avatar
No worries, thanks for doing it and just excited and ready for it when it happens.
Avatar
richhomiecon 01/22/2021 6:21 AM
What happened to all the talk of incentivizing a person with a physical validation device flying around the world to various spots to read local POC receipts and determine if there’s gaming? Is that no longer part of this HIP?
Avatar
Avatar
richhomiecon
What happened to all the talk of incentivizing a person with a physical validation device flying around the world to various spots to read local POC receipts and determine if there’s gaming? Is that no longer part of this HIP?
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/22/2021 6:25 AM
never was, that was something @capcom was drafting
👍 1
06:25
"audit box"
Avatar
Avatar
richhomiecon
What happened to all the talk of incentivizing a person with a physical validation device flying around the world to various spots to read local POC receipts and determine if there’s gaming? Is that no longer part of this HIP?
Austin|Solana 01/22/2021 6:40 AM
Also def not part of hip25 haha
06:41
But what a cool job that would be - basically travel the globe a-la Google Street View
06:41
I wonder if you could create something travel bloggers could easily use to earn some extra income
😆 1
Avatar
take to #hip-discussion where that travel blogger hip was discussed 😄
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
louis
if that's the case, i do feel like filtering the conversation on that into another channel would be healthy
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/22/2021 7:18 AM
#hip-23-decouple-consensus probably should be renamed/repurposed to something like #hip-23-validator-staking
07:19
the spirit of that HIP was generally what this HIP (25) has become at the core...but also broad enough to cover staking considerations etc. but the naming doesn't exactly make sense anymore as hip 25 will accomplish decoupling fundamentally
07:19
but I was also giving considerations to stake, DPoS and such there...so maybe there. 🤷‍♂️
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/798317614879342622/801143517002989650 100% support in this straw poll. If that's not approval I don't know what is
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/22/2021 7:20 AM
93 but who's counting 😉 lol
Avatar
Well ya gotta exclude Jamie’s votes which are just there for the emojis to show up
👍 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/22/2021 8:16 AM
ah true true good point 🙂
Avatar
Whats the reasoning for the 5 month lock?
Avatar
traditional
12:55
more seriously, it's meant to discourage people from hopping in and out. 5 months may be too long, but that's something that we can debate
👍 1
Avatar
I probably won't stake with the proposal as is. However, I understand that validation needs to move off of RPi.
Avatar
we haven't had much of that perspective, do you care to expand on why?
Avatar
I have seen that when chains have short unbonding periods, exchanges come to dominate consensus because they can stake customer funds. when the unbonding period is longer, exchanges are not willing to take duration risk and do not stake. I believe that exchanges staking user funds is harmful to network security and therefore support the longer unbonding period
Avatar
@Tushar can you define short and point at some chains that do this?
Avatar
Tezos is a good example
13:10
Coinbase and Binance will stake your XTZ for you
13:11
but they don't let users vote on governance or forks. the exchange actually makes all the decisions on behalf of their users
13:15
@oilbird did you have any thoughts?
13:17
@Tushar do you know of any good resource that might have an existing comparison chart of all the PoS chains out there? I'm fine with building one myself, but I don't want to spend the time if it's already been done
Avatar
what are the variables you want to track? I can ask one of our analysts to put it together for you
Avatar
ideally we'd have a spreadsheet of the top 10-20 PoS chains by fiat denominated value with warmup period, cooldown period, staking threshold, presence of on-chain delegation, how much is staked as a % of possible coins (if relevant to the protocol)
Avatar
Avatar
evan
@oilbird did you have any thoughts?
I do, but it's kinda late here atm so I can't expand. I will hopefully have time tomorrow, apologies.
Avatar
no worries, I'd love to hear your feedback
13:22
evan@helium if it's easier
Avatar
Hello everyone, Great job by the authors of HIP-25 and several others who contributed towards the staking proposal. It looks great and the only thing I would add to this HIP is that we should make only the existing hotspot miners eligible for running validators and below are the rationale for the same and the technical implementation thoughts. The hotspot miners are the lifeblood of the Helium network and its growth. What differentiates Helium from every other blockchain is the distributed and decentralized nature of the physical element of the hotspot mining. Having an atomized and geographical distribution of the HotSpot miners makes the network resilient, useful, and safer vs other purely digital blockchain networks. Allowing anyone who simply owns HNT or buys HNT from the market to stake and run a validator might compromise the security of the network. Limiting the opportunity of running a validator to only miners adds extra security to the network preventing potential network attacks from parties without skin in the game. We had 10X growth in the network last year and there is a very good chance that the network can grow 10X this year as well. With the halving happening later this year, the average hotspot will earn only 1/20th (5%) of current HNT earnings during the end of this year if the network keeps at the same growth rate. As per current token economics, 6% HNT allocation to the consensus group (CG) is within the hotspot miners. Requiring that validators be run by miners also allows the allocation to remain within the stakeholders and incentivize further network growth even after halvings. The minimum number of nodes required as per this HIP is 100. Currently, there are 16,000 active hotspots and at least 5% to 10% of the hotspot owners will likely run validator nodes at the beginning, which is more than enough validator nodes to make this successful from inception.
13:28
Limiting the ability to become a validator only to hotspot miners beside the HNT required to stake creates the right incentive for hotspot owners to perform good behavior on the network. We propose that any miner looking to become a validator be required to have been mining for a certain block period to make sure it has been actively participating in the network prior to earning the right to run a validator. Initially, the block period can be small and increase over time. A lot of hotspot miners may not have 10,000 HNT to stake. So it will create an opportunity for the community to develop economic activity through the capital market around HNT including lending/borrowing using HNT. For example, miners can borrow HNT and pay a portion of their staking reward to the lenders. This creates further economic activity for HNT beyond data credits and allows miners to create staking pools for users/community through them similar to bitcoin mining pools, increasing utility for all stakeholders. Finally, one easy way to technically implement this is as follows: a qualified hotspot miner looking to run a validator node can simply use its keys to sign a message assigning a validator key to its validator node, and then broadcast the message to the blockchain network. This can be done with the current Helium blockchain implementation without the need for any new cryptographic primitive. In summary, restricting the right to run a validator to the miners incentivizes long-term network growth even after multiple halvings, improves security, and drives good network behavior. It also greatly reduces the attack surface of the network and creates the opportunity for all stakeholders to benefit from new incentives and economic activity for HNT through the creation of new capital markets. I will work with Jamie and Abhay to get this added to HIP-25 in Github so all community members can weigh in their thoughts
13:29
Below is the google doc link for anyone to make their comments
13:29
Hello everyone, Great job by the authors of HIP-25 and several others who contributed towards the staking proposal. It looks great and the only thing I would add to this HIP is that we should make only the existing hotspot miners eligible for running validators and below are the rationale for th...
👍 7
👀 4
🍴 3
Avatar
@Arul can you add that link to the discussion thread in the HIP repo?
13:30
I think that it's an interesting thing to talk about, but it's unlikely to go that way
Avatar
Avatar
evan
@Arul can you add that link to the discussion thread in the HIP repo?
Sure
Avatar
Added Google doc link to the discussion thread in the HIP repo
Avatar
Great ideas here. Lots to improve the way Helium can scale!
Avatar
I think one of the primary goals of this HIP is to move consensus off of hotspots and onto larger machines which have the capacity to run the chain as the network grows. The main problem with having consensus on the hotspots themselves is performance and slow block times, which will only get worse as the network grows
👀 1
Avatar
I think that the idea here is to link them somehow
13:56
which is interesting, but I don't think that it presents a real obstacle to anyone who wants to stake
Avatar
Limiting the opportunity of running a validator to only miners adds extra security to the network preventing potential network attacks from parties without skin in the game.
given the cost of miner hardware, this doesn't feel like a strong argument. a $299 purchase versus 10,000 HNT?
Avatar
@Arul I don't think linking the two will produce the results you want here tbh. If it was, I would buy one hotspot, buy a ton of HNT and become a validator
13:57
not caring about that hotspot
Avatar
we should have one hotspot run only 1 validator
Avatar
one of the nice things about this is that it allows for specialization
13:58
server people can run validators, social people can sell hosts on spots
13:58
not to say that the sets are disjoint, but
Avatar
Avatar
Arul
we should have one hotspot run only 1 validator
right, so the barrier to entry is 10,200HNT with 10k being the stake and 200 being a hotspot
13:59
nvm, just read you want to drop the 10k stake
Avatar
the specialization point is important too - im going to guess most miners are not either willing or capable of running a validator, yet now people who are capable are not able to participate
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Limiting the opportunity of running a validator to only miners adds extra security to the network preventing potential network attacks from parties without skin in the game.
given the cost of miner hardware, this doesn't feel like a strong argument. a $299 purchase versus 10,000 HNT?
Not everyone will do. But even if 5% to 10% does run validators it is a great argument. If they can borrow HNT at a yield lower than staking yield, lot of hotspot owners will find way to do that. That creates one of the great utility for HNT - Lending/ borrowing
Avatar
I think we would end up with a lot of poorly functioning validators
Avatar
Avatar
Radrob
nvm, just read you want to drop the 10k stake
The barrier to entry for hotspot owner is still only $299. We expect portion of the hotspot owners to stake 10,000 HNT and run validators
Avatar
got it...my reading comprehension is struggling today
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
I think one of the primary goals of this HIP is to move consensus off of hotspots and onto larger machines which have the capacity to run the chain as the network grows. The main problem with having consensus on the hotspots themselves is performance and slow block times, which will only get worse as the network grows
We want Consensus to go out from hotspot device itself to validator. We are just limiting only the hotspot owner to run validator.
Avatar
I still think this won't produce the results you want. If someone is interested in being a validator but not a hotspot owner, they would buy a hotspot turn it on to become a validator and then turn it off. Resulting in the same as it not being tied to a hotspot
Avatar
Avatar
Radrob
I still think this won't produce the results you want. If someone is interested in being a validator but not a hotspot owner, they would buy a hotspot turn it on to become a validator and then turn it off. Resulting in the same as it not being tied to a hotspot
Limiting the ability to become a validator only to hotspot miners beside the HNT required to stake creates the right incentive for hotspot owners to perform good behavior on the network. We propose that any miner looking to become a validator be required to have been mining for a certain block period to make sure it has been actively participating in the network prior to earning the right to run a validator. Initially, the block period can be small and increase over time.
Avatar
Avatar
Radrob
right, so the barrier to entry is 10,200HNT with 10k being the stake and 200 being a hotspot
A lot of hotspot miners may not have 10,000 HNT to stake. So it will create an opportunity for the community to develop economic activity through the capital market around HNT including lending/borrowing using HNT. For example, miners can borrow HNT and pay a portion of their staking reward to the lenders. This creates further economic activity for HNT beyond data credits and allows miners to create staking pools for users/community through them similar to bitcoin mining pools, increasing utility for all stakeholders.
Avatar
How does this reduce the attack surface of the network?
Avatar
it's an interesting concept, but I really don't think that it accomplishes its goals in an effective way
Avatar
@evan Can you pls be specific why it cannot be accomplished
Avatar
Avatar
evan
it's an interesting concept, but I really don't think that it accomplishes its goals in an effective way
I agree. It won't effectively limit the validators to true miners
Avatar
it can be done, it's just not very effective about "protecting the network"
14:09
which I gather is the goal
14:10
acquiring a spot is at best a minor bump in the road for someone who wants to make a validator (edited)
Avatar
That is correct. But even if 5% to 10% of miners run validator it serves the purpose. We are not expecting everyone to run validator
Avatar
I would argue contra that this encourages people to get spots and then abandon them
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
Arul
We want Consensus to go out from hotspot device itself to validator. We are just limiting only the hotspot owner to run validator.
Staking as a service companies like Chorus One or Bison Trails could just buy a hotspot per validator they run and throw it in the closet to meet this requirement (edited)
Avatar
Deleted User 01/22/2021 2:15 PM
What about the attack vector? Emrit owns a lot of hotspots and may have a lot of power over the network
Avatar
also tying them together on an ongoing basis is complex and fragile
14:16
like I said, I don't think that it's very effective, but it's an interesting thought experiment. thanks to @Arul for proposing it
Avatar
Avatar
evan
also tying them together on an ongoing basis is complex and fragile
This is a good point, that we should ponder
Avatar
Avatar
evan
like I said, I don't think that it's very effective, but it's an interesting thought experiment. thanks to @Arul for proposing it
Defintietly it is not a thought experiement. It comes from the experience of running some of the largest staking nodes
Avatar
@Arul if you want this proposal taken more seriously, then, I would suggest you go back and consider more specifically its goals and how it achieves them
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
Staking as a service companies like Chorus One or Bison Trails could just buy a hotspot per validator they run and throw it in the closet to meet this requirement (edited)
Crypto Zach 01/22/2021 2:21 PM
I think that the hotspots linked to validators should be required to have a good track record, such as being online and completing PoC challenges +95% of the time. A hotspot in a closet should not be able to run a validator node.
Avatar
I think that a later delegation feature can handle this better than linking them at first (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I think that a later delegation feature can handle this better than linking them at first (edited)
Yes, we should explore delegation feature
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I think that a later delegation feature can handle this better than linking them at first (edited)
Crypto Zach 01/22/2021 2:23 PM
Or a requirement for the hotspot to continuously have a good track record or risk losing their validator spot
👍 1
Avatar
I think that burden of proof is on people who're pro linking to prove that it would do anything at all to protect the network
Avatar
Deleted User 01/22/2021 2:25 PM
Totally not in favor of having hotspots have a say in consensus anymore.
Avatar
I am pretty fond of having the hotspot “attest” a validator which is essentially seconding checking its performance based on validity of block signing but I don’t think the current HBBFT works quite like that but I’m still very young in Erlang and that implementation to begin with
14:28
^however, I think all of this also could be the next layer for validators and not a starting point (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Arul
Yes, we should explore delegation feature
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/22/2021 2:42 PM
I would point to #hip-23-decouple-consensus -- though its title is now not exactly descriptive of the distinction from 25 (edited)
14:42
Helium Improvement Proposals. Contribute to helium/HIP development by creating an account on GitHub.
Avatar
@🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ - I will take a look at that HIP
👍 1
Avatar
Hey guys, David here (Arul's partner), couple of points here to add to the discussion a few ideas: - a miner could assign or link a validator wallet/key so any miner can point to an own validator or to a third party validator (eg Blockdaemon, Bison, etc). - we are proposing the miner can qualify to run a validator by providing mining services for certain time, eg 90 days in blocks time. - agree that we need to verify the validator is associated with an online HotSpot. We can verify cryptographically that the hotspot miner key that is linked-associated with its validator is online. If the hotspot goes offline, the linked-associated validator should not participate in Consensus until that HotSpot gets online again. - For an attack trying to control the consensus, you will need no only take control of the validator but also to take control of the linked-associated hotspot miner. This creates another layer of protection for the network. If a miners lost control of one validator can easily unlink to that validator and bring a new one online.
👍 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/22/2021 2:43 PM
it should probably be adapted to something like "HIP 23 Delegate Gateway Stake" or something along those lines (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
dg_dscrd
Hey guys, David here (Arul's partner), couple of points here to add to the discussion a few ideas: - a miner could assign or link a validator wallet/key so any miner can point to an own validator or to a third party validator (eg Blockdaemon, Bison, etc). - we are proposing the miner can qualify to run a validator by providing mining services for certain time, eg 90 days in blocks time. - agree that we need to verify the validator is associated with an online HotSpot. We can verify cryptographically that the hotspot miner key that is linked-associated with its validator is online. If the hotspot goes offline, the linked-associated validator should not participate in Consensus until that HotSpot gets online again. - For an attack trying to control the consensus, you will need no only take control of the validator but also to take control of the linked-associated hotspot miner. This creates another layer of protection for the network. If a miners lost control of one validator can easily unlink to that validator and bring a new one online.
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/22/2021 2:44 PM
also see #hip-23-decouple-consensus 😄
👍 1
Avatar
could we maybe have a call about this suggestion?
Avatar
Avatar
1dev
could we maybe have a call about this suggestion?
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/22/2021 2:47 PM
there is a monthly community call usually I believe, could be on the agenda there @jamiedubs
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
there is a monthly community call usually I believe, could be on the agenda there @jamiedubs
Sure. It's an interesting idea; have some work to do but TL;DR the intention is to mitigate Proof of Stake/paying to run a validator, correct? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
1dev
Sure. It's an interesting idea; have some work to do but TL;DR the intention is to mitigate Proof of Stake/paying to run a validator, correct? (edited)
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/22/2021 2:49 PM
Avatar
to move consensus off of hotspots and onto larger machines which have the capacity to run the chain as the network grows
not sure how I feel about this. I understand the performance/scalability reasons but I think it's detrimental to people hosting hotspots/makes the upfront investment for mining a lot larger
Avatar
recall that it's just 6% of the total payout
Avatar
Avatar
1dev
to move consensus off of hotspots and onto larger machines which have the capacity to run the chain as the network grows
not sure how I feel about this. I understand the performance/scalability reasons but I think it's detrimental to people hosting hotspots/makes the upfront investment for mining a lot larger
also please read the HIP as it explains the necessity quite clearly
Avatar
ok sure
Avatar
commenting on a HIP without reading it is not useful
Avatar
oh ok. Yeah my bad will read it fully (edited)
Avatar
Tying consensus to how well hotspots are performing (like this linking proposal recommends) sounds too much like going back to score-based CG to me.
Avatar
no worries. and yes, reminder this is only talking about the 6% of rewards that are allocated to 'consensus' today. PoC is not affected at all
👍 1
Avatar
@dg_dscrd to my mind, all of that stuff is adding fragility to the system without addressing the complaint that the security it provides is largely illusory
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
no worries. and yes, reminder this is only talking about the 6% of rewards that are allocated to 'consensus' today. PoC is not affected at all
would the "6%" be regulated or is it just an estimate? Because stake could effect consensus/mining earnings for hotspot owners far in the future if there are more validators as the network grows (edited)
Avatar
fully agree that consensus should be kept out of the miners and in the hands of validators with high performance machines using PoS incentives. My feedback on that, is the right to run a validator should be given to hotspot miners or from hotspot miners. We are seeing that in other networks transitioning from high latency PoW to low latency PoS, the best example is ETH 1.0 that gives the right to run a ETH 2.0 validator.
Avatar
it's always 6%
14:56
so ~300k HNT/mo at the current issuance rate
Avatar
@dg_dscrd why?
14:56
arguing precedent is fine, but how does it achieve the goal?
Avatar
The ETH example is actually exactly the same as being proposed here. ETH 2.0 requires ETH to stake but doesn't require you to be an ETH1 miner.
Avatar
Avatar
dg_dscrd
fully agree that consensus should be kept out of the miners and in the hands of validators with high performance machines using PoS incentives. My feedback on that, is the right to run a validator should be given to hotspot miners or from hotspot miners. We are seeing that in other networks transitioning from high latency PoW to low latency PoS, the best example is ETH 1.0 that gives the right to run a ETH 2.0 validator.
this isn't accurate? anyone can stake 32 ETH and participate in the 2.0 validator pool
Avatar
Just requires ETH to be acquired.
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
it's always 6%
ok. because if it weren't then I'd fear ETH miners or people who's blockchain tech moved to PoS taking all their hardware and using it to occupy the network
Avatar
the consensus models aren't comparable, really
Avatar
Avatar
1dev
ok. because if it weren't then I'd fear ETH miners or people who's blockchain tech moved to PoS taking all their hardware and using it to occupy the network
no, the rewards pool is fixed. the only thing that changes is how many validators there are to split it among
👍 1
Avatar
right, so if there are more validators then each validator would receive fewer earnings?
Avatar
correct
Avatar
so it really doesn't incentivize staking above a certain threshold
Avatar
also correct
Avatar
the threshold is pretty high, though
Avatar
@Arul I like your suggestion but I feel that fewer validators would be onboarded if your proposal were to be passed: there are many etheruem miners who are actively looking for alternative technology to use their hardware that they invested in for (gpu mining) (as Ethereum is moving towards Proof of Stake and a more scalable model, like I said before) (edited)
15:06
(correct me if I'm wrong)
Avatar
I agree, I think this takes away from the goal of hip 25 to offload CG to more reliable and connectable hardware (servers!)
Avatar
it also adds complexity and makes the system more brittle, which is exactly the opposite of what we want to accomplish for v1 of this. at best id propose punting this down the line for discussion once the validator system is actually working
Avatar
If our goal (through this proposal and discussion) is to allow hotspot owners to be able to participate in the post-validator world, the ecosystem will provide professional staking as a service companies. Many exist today for other PoS chains (like allnodes, stakefish, masternode, etc.). They can provide the UI around onboarding your HNT to an existing staking service.
Avatar
getting the network stable/fast is the absolute priority
👍 4
💯 7
Avatar
and this ^ 100% this.
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 01/22/2021 3:09 PM
So is this more to deter cloud-based validators?
Avatar
two cents here: the main value of the Helium network does not come from Consensus, come from miners providing wireless coverage. We should retain that as a core requisite for anyone looking to participate in the consensus with validators. If we segregate the incentives it will also impact in the combined value the network can accrue over time. We might want to think how the network will look in 5 to 10 years. I also understand the need of stabilizing the network immediately so it is a long term/short term benefit-trade off 🙂
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
So is this more to deter cloud-based validators?
No. there should be no restrictions on where you run your validator. In fact the cloud likely has better internet 🙂
15:10
Assuming you know how to operate, avoid firewals and NAT, maintain opsec, etc. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
dg_dscrd
two cents here: the main value of the Helium network does not come from Consensus, come from miners providing wireless coverage. We should retain that as a core requisite for anyone looking to participate in the consensus with validators. If we segregate the incentives it will also impact in the combined value the network can accrue over time. We might want to think how the network will look in 5 to 10 years. I also understand the need of stabilizing the network immediately so it is a long term/short term benefit-trade off 🙂
I don't understand the mechanism of action of "impact the combined value the network can accrue over time"
Avatar
I think that Helium has physical devices that can make the network more secure if we use them. It is easier to buy enough stake than to deploy thousands of Hotspots
Avatar
there is a fixed pool of rewards
15:12
the majority of the rewards still go to the bits with the RF hardware
Avatar
If you compare Ethereum 2.0, it is very different because they don't have more than stake mechanism
Avatar
the vast majority
Avatar
not using the Hotspots on the consensus seems a bit waste
Avatar
Avatar
pyabo
not using the Hotspots on the consensus seems a bit waste
I don't understand this
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I don't understand the mechanism of action of "impact the combined value the network can accrue over time"
you can run a validator with 10K HNT stake and not add value to the coverage of the network by avoiding to run a hot spot. Will not be better than on top of the validator you are looking to run with your 10K HNT you also could increase and enhance the coverage of the network by deploying a hotspot?
Avatar
and the big value of the network is there, so it is logic to use them and reward them
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I don't understand this
EdB-charlietango 01/22/2021 3:14 PM
It’s a loss of CPU power/mining potential
Avatar
it's a raspi
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I don't understand this
I mean that you have something that is much more difficult to attack and you are not using it to secure the network
Avatar
Avatar
evan
it's a raspi
EdB-charlietango 01/22/2021 3:15 PM
The power of sats, in whichever other crypto you like (edited)
Avatar
the spots are trivial to attack
Avatar
all together?
Avatar
you only need to attack 16 to bring the network down
15:16
which 16 are public
15:16
their IPs are easy to get
Avatar
but what's the actual mechanism to use them for consensus? the HIP writing explains the computational and network issues with the way it is done today
Avatar
that is what we need to solve
Avatar
with stronger machines, we can increase the size of the consensus group to the point where it's actually difficult to attack
💯 2
15:17
we don't even need machines that are that much bigger
15:17
we can more than double the size of the group on a 2-core recent xeon cloud slice (edited)
Avatar
you will have a mining network like any other
Avatar
how though? only 6% of the rewards go to this validator pool
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 01/22/2021 3:18 PM
Don’t need an attack if something gets booted off the cloud. This is why I’m in favor of not using popular cloud providers.
Avatar
why would it get booted off the cloud?
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
Don’t need an attack if something gets booted off the cloud. This is why I’m in favor of not using popular cloud providers.
I think when most people talk about hosting validators they mean using hardware at-home; not cloud mining services
Avatar
Avatar
evan
why would it get booted off the cloud?
EdB-charlietango 01/22/2021 3:19 PM
Politics
Avatar
this seems a remote concern
Avatar
A cloud server is way less likely to get booted off the cloud than a raspi behind a consumer-grade router
Avatar
I'm trying to understand the "mining pool like any other" objection
Avatar
Avatar
olb1ue
A cloud server is way less likely to get booted off the cloud than a raspi behind a consumer-grade router
yea, i dont follow that logic at all. i think we could have some rules around too much of the CG being on the same provider and region, based on IP
15:21
ie. all 100 being on us-east-2 is probably a bad idea
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 01/22/2021 3:21 PM
It’s not truly decentralized if everything (validators) falls to a few cloud providers. Imho
Avatar
I understand how running PoS validators will make the network stronger/safer from a consensus perspective. Linking that right of participating to the hotspot will also make the network stronger in coverage. Combining a Stronger consensus with a stronger coverage will have a bigger impact in the network value than just making the consensus stronger.
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
It’s not truly decentralized if everything (validators) falls to a few cloud providers. Imho
anyone can run validators where they want. the protocol should not try and dictate that
15:22
if cloud providers kick validators off that is an opportunity for people to run them elsewhere
Avatar
Avatar
dg_dscrd
I understand how running PoS validators will make the network stronger/safer from a consensus perspective. Linking that right of participating to the hotspot will also make the network stronger in coverage. Combining a Stronger consensus with a stronger coverage will have a bigger impact in the network value than just making the consensus stronger.
we expect the network to grow more than 10x. this would be less than 1x even if strongly tied together
15:22
the immense cost in fragility the linking together would entail aside
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
if cloud providers kick validators off that is an opportunity for people to run them elsewhere
exactly.
15:25
also I think to an extent validators will actually increase mining earnings for hotspot owners.
Avatar
Avatar
1dev
also I think to an extent validators will actually increase mining earnings for hotspot owners.
good point if block time is more stable and on target more consistently
Avatar
Avatar
olb1ue
good point if block time is more stable and on target more consistently
agreed. Yeah earnings have been pretty bad for hotspot owners in low-populated areas (even with antennas to some extent). Like I only make around .10-1 HNT per day
15:29
I think LPWAN tech in context to the whole blockchain ecosystem should be limited to providing internet service for IoT devices. I think it would be reasonable for the rest to be done via the internet. What do you think?
Avatar
The intention of HIP-25 to take the consensus group off the hotspot to the validator which has better processing capacity to run as the network grows still remains the same. We are proposing to link hotspot owner to validator so we still maintain Helium blockchain’s original intent of giving the hotspot owner to be part of the consensus group and also allowing the blockchain to scale by having validator run on a cloud infrastructure. If 16,000 hotspot owners already bought the miner devices with the promise that they are part of the 6% HNT allocation for the consensus group and suddenly if we take that out from them and move to validators, it changes the economic model and discourages the hotspot owners. If we have a way to still keep the consensus reward to hotspot owners and still have them run the validator with a higher processing capacity, why we don’t want to do that? We can very well brainstorm more of the technical feasibility of linking hotspots to the validators in an efficient manner and allow the network to grow stronger We need to remember that the core value of the Helium network does not just come from consensus alone, rather it comes mostly from the hotspot miners providing wireless coverage. We should retain that as a core requirement for anyone looking to participate in the consensus with validators.
15:32
I added above context to the google doc and below is the link again
15:32
Hello everyone, Great job by the authors of HIP-25 and several others who contributed towards the staking proposal. It looks great and the only thing we propose to add to this HIP is that we should make only the hotspot miners be qualified for running validators rather than anyone who have HNT. ...
Avatar
Avatar
Arul
The intention of HIP-25 to take the consensus group off the hotspot to the validator which has better processing capacity to run as the network grows still remains the same. We are proposing to link hotspot owner to validator so we still maintain Helium blockchain’s original intent of giving the hotspot owner to be part of the consensus group and also allowing the blockchain to scale by having validator run on a cloud infrastructure. If 16,000 hotspot owners already bought the miner devices with the promise that they are part of the 6% HNT allocation for the consensus group and suddenly if we take that out from them and move to validators, it changes the economic model and discourages the hotspot owners. If we have a way to still keep the consensus reward to hotspot owners and still have them run the validator with a higher processing capacity, why we don’t want to do that? We can very well brainstorm more of the technical feasibility of linking hotspots to the validators in an efficient manner and allow the network to grow stronger We need to remember that the core value of the Helium network does not just come from consensus alone, rather it comes mostly from the hotspot miners providing wireless coverage. We should retain that as a core requirement for anyone looking to participate in the consensus with validators.
i agree at some level, but i think it's important to be clear about the goal. if it's about moving 6% away from hotspot hosts, then let's be clear on that rather than thinking about it from a security pov (where i think it largely adds nothing)
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
Arul
The intention of HIP-25 to take the consensus group off the hotspot to the validator which has better processing capacity to run as the network grows still remains the same. We are proposing to link hotspot owner to validator so we still maintain Helium blockchain’s original intent of giving the hotspot owner to be part of the consensus group and also allowing the blockchain to scale by having validator run on a cloud infrastructure. If 16,000 hotspot owners already bought the miner devices with the promise that they are part of the 6% HNT allocation for the consensus group and suddenly if we take that out from them and move to validators, it changes the economic model and discourages the hotspot owners. If we have a way to still keep the consensus reward to hotspot owners and still have them run the validator with a higher processing capacity, why we don’t want to do that? We can very well brainstorm more of the technical feasibility of linking hotspots to the validators in an efficient manner and allow the network to grow stronger We need to remember that the core value of the Helium network does not just come from consensus alone, rather it comes mostly from the hotspot miners providing wireless coverage. We should retain that as a core requirement for anyone looking to participate in the consensus with validators.
Again, there are lots of Ethereum miners who will need to seek other technology as Proof of Stake adoption advances in the ecosystem in the future. I feel like it would be a waste of compute/potential validators if you were to restrict it to hotspot miners only. Also performance and scalability is a top-priority. You can only hash so much with a raspberry pi -> compare that to a GPU. Hotspot owners would be compensated through higher PoC earnings through greater adoption of the helium ecosystem (+ appreciation in miner count from ethereum miners; and other gpu miners)
15:35
I am in agreeance to some extent with a shared consensus system but I feel like proper server-grade hardware would do a better job at mining and overall improve blockchain ecosystem performance and efficiency
15:36
Like it would just make more sense for the hotspots to be LoraWan gateways rather than miners but they could still reap the reward of PoC and with antennas that would be increased
Avatar
I feel like the same bald assertions are getting made repeatedly without any additional backing
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I feel like the same bald assertions are getting made repeatedly without any additional backing
sure. Feel free to deconstruct what I said
Avatar
Avatar
Arul
The intention of HIP-25 to take the consensus group off the hotspot to the validator which has better processing capacity to run as the network grows still remains the same. We are proposing to link hotspot owner to validator so we still maintain Helium blockchain’s original intent of giving the hotspot owner to be part of the consensus group and also allowing the blockchain to scale by having validator run on a cloud infrastructure. If 16,000 hotspot owners already bought the miner devices with the promise that they are part of the 6% HNT allocation for the consensus group and suddenly if we take that out from them and move to validators, it changes the economic model and discourages the hotspot owners. If we have a way to still keep the consensus reward to hotspot owners and still have them run the validator with a higher processing capacity, why we don’t want to do that? We can very well brainstorm more of the technical feasibility of linking hotspots to the validators in an efficient manner and allow the network to grow stronger We need to remember that the core value of the Helium network does not just come from consensus alone, rather it comes mostly from the hotspot miners providing wireless coverage. We should retain that as a core requirement for anyone looking to participate in the consensus with validators.
Deleted User 01/22/2021 3:37 PM
"If 16,000 hotspot owners already bought the miner devices with the promise that they are part of the 6% HNT allocation for the consensus group and suddenly if we take that out from them and move to validators, it changes the economic model and discourages the hotspot owners." I disagree. The current model is a lottery system + no promises were made at all regarding this lottery system
💯 2
Avatar
@1dev I don't disagree with what you said. I'm just getting tired of the assertion that it's important to link validators and hotspots in some way without any real justification
👍 1
Avatar
Everybody benefits by a more robust network. Consensus is so infrequent + now random, it's hard to believe anybody is really dependent on it to make their purchase of a hotspot worthwhile. Also hotspot owners are likely those who would have accumulated enough HNT to validate and if others decide they want to purchase HNT to participate in validation, I view that as good for the network as well.
👆 4
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
"If 16,000 hotspot owners already bought the miner devices with the promise that they are part of the 6% HNT allocation for the consensus group and suddenly if we take that out from them and move to validators, it changes the economic model and discourages the hotspot owners." I disagree. The current model is a lottery system + no promises were made at all regarding this lottery system
EdB-charlietango 01/22/2021 3:39 PM
It’s not going anywhere else right now. Still an intrinsic motivator and especially helpful for solid lone wolves.
Avatar
Avatar
evan
@1dev I don't disagree with what you said. I'm just getting tired of the assertion that it's important to link validators and hotspots in some way without any real justification
sure. I'm new to helium technology in general so I'm sure there are people who could justify + explain the linking better than I can
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
It’s not going anywhere else right now. Still an intrinsic motivator and especially helpful for solid lone wolves.
it's shrinking with each added hotspot
Avatar
election to the CG will be 10x less likely by the end of the year (at least) (edited)
☝️ 2
Avatar
we said the same thing
Avatar
i'm slow 🙂
Avatar
it might affect someone's decision right now
15:40
but it won't in a few months
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 01/22/2021 3:43 PM
Everything is shrinking...but its still the power of sats thinking on a long hold approach. Anyone not being okay with sats thinking by the end of the year is in for a wake-up call. Lol, just took me too long to type this.
Avatar
what do you all think about 100% of consensus eventually being migrated to validators/cpu and gpu miners and hotspots becoming gateways for lorawan? Just a hypothetical and super extreme atm (edited)
Avatar
I can see the incentive of wanting validators linked to hotspots for an account with a ton of hotspots, and keeping that occasional CG bonus in your HNT rewards but it feels like that incentive is outweighed by the benefits that server-grade validators would bring to the network.
💯 1
Avatar
that is "sats thinking"
Avatar
satoshis, bitcoin
15:44
"stacking sats"
Avatar
I'm still lost, I'm not a cultist
15:45
@1dev that is kind of the point of the HIP
Avatar
Avatar
evan
@1dev that is kind of the point of the HIP
Right. Yeah it's kind of opening the doors to it but it really suggested doing it minimally compared to the rest of the blockchain (6%)
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I'm still lost, I'm not a cultist
there's a movement around continually stacking up satoshis even though they are small amounts today, they will be worth a lot later
😂 1
Avatar
ok, I don't see the bearing on the conversation
Avatar
like I wonder what real cons there are to transitioning to full validator structure and having nodes being lora gateways
Avatar
stacking bones?
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
there's a movement around continually stacking up satoshis even though they are small amounts today, they will be worth a lot later
the kind of people who went to the bitconnect convention 😂 (edited)
15:47
Avatar
Avatar
evan
ok, I don't see the bearing on the conversation
can't help you there mate
😆 1
Avatar
one other thing I must say about the current mining situation with helium, is that, there haven't just been reductions in earnings/overall slowness in the blockchain. It's also been a reduction in speed in terms of attaining hardware to get involved + calchip supply chain shortages.
Avatar
that's not really germane to the hip
Avatar
Also the fact that DIY miners can't earn HNT seems like a deterrent for people who want to mine but can't
Avatar
Avatar
evan
that's not really germane to the hip
well it is. Let me elaborate: with a greater adoption in validators + cpu and gpu mining, there'd be a greater variety in the hardware people could use to earn hnt + there really wouldn't be as long of a wait time/queue to attain hardware to mine (unless you're trying to get a lot of 3090s 😂 ) if that makes sense. It would also democratize the mining hardware landscape of the helium blockchain.
Avatar
GPUs aren't relevant
16:04
I have no idea what you're talking about here
16:04
this is not a PoW network
16:04
I'm not explaining it well
16:05
Let's just take a step back and look at the mining landscape for Helium atm (if you'd like to earn HNT): you need a RAK miner.
Avatar
Avatar
1dev
Also the fact that DIY miners can't earn HNT seems like a deterrent for people who want to mine but can't
EdB-charlietango 01/22/2021 4:05 PM
Agree on the short term. Disagree on long term. We do this right...and everyone would get one. Because the hardware would get cheap enough at volume. I think that’s what you’re getting at?
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
Agree on the short term. Disagree on long term. We do this right...and everyone would get one. Because the hardware would get cheap enough at volume. I think that’s what you’re getting at?
Maybe. But I think there should be a diversification of the hardware used for mining. Like it's very monolithic/centralized. Which I think is one of the reasons why calchip + RAK have been back-ordered as of late. Through validators I believe that you can democratize mining and give miners the option to choose the manufacturers and means of production they will depend on (if that makes sense)? Like even if calchip and RAK increased production to meet demand for miners, it's still a centralized authority for the distribution of mining hardware.
💯 1
16:10
tangential convo; sorry if that didn't make sense (edited)
Avatar
we're actively working on making light gateways (our term for lora-only spots) happen
16:11
validators are a part of that effort
👍 1
16:11
I can't recall the wording, but I think that I mentioned this in the HIP
16:11
I could be wrong
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
i agree at some level, but i think it's important to be clear about the goal. if it's about moving 6% away from hotspot hosts, then let's be clear on that rather than thinking about it from a security pov (where i think it largely adds nothing)
Amir - You got it. Yes the goal is to keep the token allocation to miner intact. At a macro level, going ahead with the validator implementation at the earliest is an important aspect and I agree to that. For the long term success, I strongly believe that having only the qualified hotspot owners eligible to became a validator is the right approach. We should keep this as part of the road map and preferably implement at the time of cloud miner rollout. Happy weekend all !
Avatar
I strongly believe that having only the qualified hotspot owners eligible to became a validator is the right approach.
18:01
I still do not understand why that is the right approach after reading your rationale
18:02
and I want to make sure that you understand that this is not a cloud miner (which, as understood today, is a 1-1 relationship with a packet forwarder) (edited)
18:02
but.. no rush.. it's late on Friday
😄 1
Avatar
I fully understand it is not part of cloud miner
Avatar
then, when you have a chance maybe explain
18:03
implement at the time of cloud miner rollout.
Avatar
Sure, I will have my blockchain team put together a detailed approach
👍 1
18:08
We will also go over few concepts that has been implemented in Algorand like having 2 keys - participation key and spending key
👍 2
Avatar
I'm not sure how that relates to why only qualified hotspot owners should be validators, but I look forward to the writeup
Avatar
Seems like a funny requirement when the price to play as a validator is multitudes higher than to own a hotspot.
Avatar
That's my first impression too.. but I'm trying to understand the reasoning
18:12
also remember that there is no way validator code will actually run on a hotspot
Avatar
Or is the intention to keep the HNT going back to hotspot owners only
Avatar
to which the "see capcom's earlier message on 6% of the mining rewards" seems appropriate (edited)
18:16
huge network connectivity and reliability upside for hotspot owners comes with it (edited)
18:17
but let's hear it all.. all views are great learning
Avatar
Deleted User 01/22/2021 6:18 PM
The incentives here are different. They're presenting this which favors hotspot owners and it's not by coincidence that they own thousands of hotspots 🤷
Avatar
Avatar
Arul
The intention of HIP-25 to take the consensus group off the hotspot to the validator which has better processing capacity to run as the network grows still remains the same. We are proposing to link hotspot owner to validator so we still maintain Helium blockchain’s original intent of giving the hotspot owner to be part of the consensus group and also allowing the blockchain to scale by having validator run on a cloud infrastructure. If 16,000 hotspot owners already bought the miner devices with the promise that they are part of the 6% HNT allocation for the consensus group and suddenly if we take that out from them and move to validators, it changes the economic model and discourages the hotspot owners. If we have a way to still keep the consensus reward to hotspot owners and still have them run the validator with a higher processing capacity, why we don’t want to do that? We can very well brainstorm more of the technical feasibility of linking hotspots to the validators in an efficient manner and allow the network to grow stronger We need to remember that the core value of the Helium network does not just come from consensus alone, rather it comes mostly from the hotspot miners providing wireless coverage. We should retain that as a core requirement for anyone looking to participate in the consensus with validators.
I think this is a valid goal. But I do not see how this could ever be enforced. The stake requirement is 10,000 HNT, which is over $15,000 at today's prices. The requirement to purchase an additional $250 device does not meaningfully help secure the network at all. It is only a trivial nuisance that validators will have to overcome. (edited)
👍 2
Avatar
nothing stopping anyone from running validators to hang onto that randomly spread 6% while reaping the benefit of a better connected network (edited)
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
I think this is a valid goal. But I do not see how this could ever be enforced. The stake requirement is 10,000 HNT, which is over $15,000 at today's prices. The requirement to purchase an additional $250 device does not meaningfully help secure the network at all. It is only a trivial nuisance that validators will have to overcome. (edited)
yeah I don't quite see it either
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
The incentives here are different. They're presenting this which favors hotspot owners and it's not by coincidence that they own thousands of hotspots 🤷
all HIPs should always benefit hotspot owners. They are the people’s network in which all of us rely on for the success of this project.
Avatar
Deleted User 01/22/2021 6:21 PM
All?
Avatar
Avatar
peters
all HIPs should always benefit hotspot owners. They are the people’s network in which all of us rely on for the success of this project.
not sure which way that is arguing
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
All?
No. Not all. We still need to solve many of the issues of gaming the system... so you’re technically correct. Not all hotspot owners are playing fair. We need to fix that. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
peters
all HIPs should always benefit hotspot owners. They are the people’s network in which all of us rely on for the success of this project.
I think HIP 25 does so by improving the performance and scalability of the blockchain which will accelerate POC and improve hotspot mining IMO
👍 3
Avatar
Avatar
1dev
I think HIP 25 does so by improving the performance and scalability of the blockchain which will accelerate POC and improve hotspot mining IMO
right, so whether you're a host or a lone wolf, you'll be better of with a better, more reliable network and chain
👍 3
18:23
but I may be missing something.. I just want to hear it.. shoot me down (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
madninja
right, so whether you're a host or a lone wolf, you'll be better of with a better, more reliable network and chain
Agreed.
Avatar
Like even if 100% of consensus were occupied by validator nodes, it would still benefit hotspot owners because they would have accelerated PoC and witness rewards
18:23
and I think in the future that is where the helium blockchain is headed towards
Avatar
that is indeed the proposal
Avatar
Avatar
madninja
that is indeed the proposal
well atm the proposal is 6% of all consensus with fixed rewards IIRC (edited)
Avatar
the validators still rely on physical hardware owned by hotspot owners, so they are still the primary value driver for the network. i.e. a validator is really nothing without hotspots (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
1dev
well atm the proposal is 6% of all consensus with fixed rewards IIRC (edited)
I may be misreading, but isn't that basically the same as CG rewards?
Avatar
Avatar
madninja
the validators still rely on physical hardware owned by hotspot owners, so they are still the primary value driver for the network. i.e. a validator is really nothing without hotspots (edited)
Sure. I think eventually validators should be hosted on server hardware/more powerful rigs opposed to hotspots which I think really serve best as LoraWan gateways while the validators could do all of the consensus computations over wifi
Avatar
What if hotspots could audit validators and if there’s a consensus of randomly selected hotspots that determine a validator isn’t a “good” one that the validator could be slashed and the slashed amount would go to those hotspots that audited the validator.
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
What if hotspots could audit validators and if there’s a consensus of randomly selected hotspots that determine a validator isn’t a “good” one that the validator could be slashed and the slashed amount would go to those hotspots that audited the validator.
yeah.. we've talked about that at some point. Figured it was a logical next step
Avatar
Avatar
madninja
I may be misreading, but isn't that basically the same as CG rewards?
Not sure. I think that's what was officially proposed for hip25 but I think the overall intention was to open up a discussion + get people thinking about scaling helium and diverting compute off of hotspots and on to dedicated machines/cpu-mining rigs? (edited)
Avatar
Just would need to save the txns that make up a block for validating after the block gets signed
Avatar
Avatar
1dev
Not sure. I think that's what was officially proposed for hip25 but I think the overall intention was to open up a discussion + get people thinking about scaling helium and diverting compute off of hotspots and on to dedicated machines/cpu-mining rigs? (edited)
dedicated machines yes, but really it's only talking about the CG reward % of the pie which is 6% of total rewards, randomly assigned shifting around
Avatar
Avatar
madninja
dedicated machines yes, but really it's only talking about the CG reward % of the pie which is 6% of total rewards, randomly assigned shifting around
oh yeah. Sorry; my bad. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
Just would need to save the txns that make up a block for validating after the block gets signed
hmm? What does this mean? I think that one of the next steps, just like with state channels is that a hotspot (or it's owner!) could "dispute" a validator (edited)
18:30
nothing stopping you as a hotspot owner from moving to another validator.. or potentially calling one out
18:30
the mechanisms of which are all "waving hands".. Getting the basics in place with this hip seems like a good staert
Avatar
the reason why I agree with the proposal of dedicated machines for consensus is because there are lots of ethereum miners who are looking for mining alternatives as ethereum is migrating to PoS via 2.0. And 2.0 will probably occupy the mainnet in 2-3 years I think. So like I think the best course of action imo would be to direct some of the miners looking for new opportunities towards helium through validators which would help the blockchain scale and improve its performance by a large margin I think (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
1dev
the reason why I agree with the proposal of dedicated machines for consensus is because there are lots of ethereum miners who are looking for mining alternatives as ethereum is migrating to PoS via 2.0. And 2.0 will probably occupy the mainnet in 2-3 years I think. So like I think the best course of action imo would be to direct some of the miners looking for new opportunities towards helium through validators which would help the blockchain scale and improve its performance by a large margin I think (edited)
Mate the HIP in question already proposes dedicated machines instead of hotspots
👍 2
Avatar
Well mind you this is just based on my current understanding which is still a work in progress but based on how HBBFT currently works the CG members passes around txns that then gets built into the block.. for individual hotspots to audit a validator they would need the txns that made the block. But this is indeed out of the scope of this HIP @madninja (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Mate the HIP in question already proposes dedicated machines instead of hotspots
sorry need to research more. Was busy with homework this evening .
👍 1
18:34
has there been a proposed price for validator stake yet? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
Well mind you this is just based on my current understanding which is still a work in progress but based on how HBBFT currently works the CG members passes around txns that then gets built into the block.. for individual hotspots to audit a validator they would need the txns that made the block. But this is indeed out of the scope of this HIP @madninja (edited)
indeed, and especially with gateways price pressure it's unlikely that will happen on the hotspots. Nothing stopping it from that analysis happening elsewhere though (edited)
Avatar
I guess we're too early in for that
Avatar
With lights being the big shift I’d agree but there’s a lot of hotspots that will be able to do it from OG and RAKspots or maybe it could be a selling point to an individual if they know their gateway would help strengthen the blockchain
Avatar
true, certainly possible, I just don't see why all the people worrying about bandwidth, firewalls, limited memory and cpu would want to do that on a hotspot 🙂 (edited)
Avatar
I wonder if there is a potential for bottlenecking when you have lots of powerful validators trying to prove PoC for hotspots that could, for example be in the midwest or a very isolated area. Probably not but just thinking about it
Avatar
keep thinking about it 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
madninja
true, certainly possible, I just don't see why all the people worrying about bandwidth, firewalls, limited memory and cpu would want to do that on a hotspot 🙂 (edited)
I get that also but I wouldn’t mind my hotspot working to audit validators even though in the future it could be something else’s primary role
Avatar
certainly too late to be thinking much on this side of the timezones
Avatar
Yeah probably not then. I guess the opposite would be true: lots of hotspots and few, low-powered machines trying to validate them which is kind of the situation we're in now 😂
Avatar
Avatar
1dev
Yeah probably not then. I guess the opposite would be true: lots of hotspots and few, low-powered machines trying to validate them which is kind of the situation we're in now 😂
not sure how you got here, but play with the incentive structures and see what the natural inclination of people running validators would be
Avatar
Avatar
madninja
not sure how you got here, but play with the incentive structures and see what the natural inclination of people running validators would be
Sure.
18:42
Yeah I need to do more research anyways; there's certainly a lot more to flesh out with hip 25
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
I think this is a valid goal. But I do not see how this could ever be enforced. The stake requirement is 10,000 HNT, which is over $15,000 at today's prices. The requirement to purchase an additional $250 device does not meaningfully help secure the network at all. It is only a trivial nuisance that validators will have to overcome. (edited)
Crypto Zach 01/22/2021 7:37 PM
There is a synergy between being fortunate enough to own 10k HNT and owning a hotpot in a location that can communicate with a lot of other hotspots (which would improve block latency by increasing propagation speed). Those with 10k HNT may not be in a good enough location to participate in challenge/response with a lot of other hotspots. And those who run hotspots who do communicate with a lot of other hotspots may not by fortunate enough to own +10k HNT (making them vulnerable to bribes). Those with the ability to stake 10k HNT towards a hotspot in an ideal location have an increased probability of acting in ways that benefit the network as a whole than those who either 1) have the ability to own 10k HNT, or 2) own a hotspot in an ideal location.
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
Crypto Zach
There is a synergy between being fortunate enough to own 10k HNT and owning a hotpot in a location that can communicate with a lot of other hotspots (which would improve block latency by increasing propagation speed). Those with 10k HNT may not be in a good enough location to participate in challenge/response with a lot of other hotspots. And those who run hotspots who do communicate with a lot of other hotspots may not by fortunate enough to own +10k HNT (making them vulnerable to bribes). Those with the ability to stake 10k HNT towards a hotspot in an ideal location have an increased probability of acting in ways that benefit the network as a whole than those who either 1) have the ability to own 10k HNT, or 2) own a hotspot in an ideal location.
Do you have any ideas on how to enforce this proposed rule?
Avatar
Avatar
Crypto Zach
There is a synergy between being fortunate enough to own 10k HNT and owning a hotpot in a location that can communicate with a lot of other hotspots (which would improve block latency by increasing propagation speed). Those with 10k HNT may not be in a good enough location to participate in challenge/response with a lot of other hotspots. And those who run hotspots who do communicate with a lot of other hotspots may not by fortunate enough to own +10k HNT (making them vulnerable to bribes). Those with the ability to stake 10k HNT towards a hotspot in an ideal location have an increased probability of acting in ways that benefit the network as a whole than those who either 1) have the ability to own 10k HNT, or 2) own a hotspot in an ideal location.
Block creation has nothing to do with proximity to other hotspots. It does not happen via RF
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
Do you have any ideas on how to enforce this proposed rule?
Crypto Zach 01/22/2021 7:42 PM
Some thresholds would need to be defined at to what an "ideal location" would look like
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Block creation has nothing to do with proximity to other hotspots. It does not happen via RF
Crypto Zach 01/22/2021 7:44 PM
Ideally, the Helium blockchain would run natively on LongFi
Avatar
Avatar
Crypto Zach
Ideally, the Helium blockchain would run natively on LongFi
No that’s very far from ideal. The maximum speed of lora is 5-20kbps. There is no chance at all of running a blockchain network this way
19:45
So, there’s no useful association between hotspot location and block creation that matters
Avatar
Crypto Zach 01/22/2021 7:46 PM
Block hashes could be communicated over LongFi to ensure consensus, while data stores within block hashes can be accessed via traditional networks
Avatar
Sure, but that has nothing to do with how those blocks are created in the first place
19:48
The process of validating transactions is very bandwidth and resource intensive. It’s not a realistic concept at all, and certainly not how the network works today (back to your original point)
Avatar
I think that 10k is a bit too high at the moment; especially for people who want to setup validators in developing countries and also spread the network there too. maybe 2.5-5k would be more reasonable for a first attempt? Feel free to reply if you disagree!
Avatar
Crypto Zach 01/22/2021 7:50 PM
The validator would need to be connected to the internet to validate txs. But once the txs have been validated, the validator can propagate the hashed block to other hotspots who don't need to be connected to the internet. That would reduce the barrier to entry for hotspots who want to participate in consensus but not be block producing validators
Avatar
If you want to propose a new consensus protocol over RF I’d certainly welcome the discussion. But that’s not relevant to this HIP
Avatar
ROI in the early stages of validation hosting may be difficult. Again, I don't think 10k for stake is a good ask price atm; especially when there is an urgent need to improve blockchain performance (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
1dev
I think that 10k is a bit too high at the moment; especially for people who want to setup validators in developing countries and also spread the network there too. maybe 2.5-5k would be more reasonable for a first attempt? Feel free to reply if you disagree!
Deleted User 01/22/2021 7:52 PM
Have you tried staking ETH? How much does that cost?
Avatar
Avatar
1dev
ROI in the early stages of validation hosting may be difficult. Again, I don't think 10k for stake is a good ask price atm; especially when there is an urgent need to improve blockchain performance (edited)
Suggest you model that out first. The roi is quite substantial at 10k. No offense but I’d really appreciate it if you did some research on any of this before making suggestions
👍 3
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
If you want to propose a new consensus protocol over RF I’d certainly welcome the discussion. But that’s not relevant to this HIP
Crypto Zach 01/22/2021 8:05 PM
The consensus protocol would still use the same framework proposed in HIP25: The validators should own the responsibility of proposing a block. The addition I'm suggesting is that the validators should have some threshold for how many other hotspots they communicate with (and possibly those hotspots ability to communicate with the internet)
Avatar
I don’t follow at all. Validators don’t communicate with hotspots via RF as they aren’t hotspots. They’re servers in a data center or cloud. But in any case I think you should write up your idea more thoroughly and add it here: https://github.com/helium/HIP/issues/111
Author(s): @evanmcc, @helium/engineering Initial PR: #110 Start Date: 2021-01-11 Category: Technical, Economic Rendered view: https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/master/0025-validators.md Summary: A...
Avatar
That just seems like consensus with extra steps.
20:07
Genuinely don’t understand how that supports the need for chain stability and network security.
Avatar
Consensus protocol design is non trivial and needs more than a few lines on discord to have a serious discussion about
Avatar
If we want to introduce hotspot participation in staking (I’m excited here), I think there’s room for that here via DPoS style contributions, perhaps in a future overstaking proposal. It even allows a market to be created where validators vie for attention from hotspot owners ask for their support and offer to share rewards based on getting attention.
👍 7
Avatar
Yea I’ve always liked the idea of some kind of PoC participation in the validator process. Using RF for consensus is fascinating but it would take a while to figure out how that should work and the pitfalls
👍 3
Avatar
thought this would be fun and hopefully address future q's: Validators by the numbers: 4= number of new chain vars: activation threshold, activation delay, minimum stake, cooldown period 5 = approx number of months (250,000 blocks) for cooldown period (staking amt is locked up before returning to account) 6 = overall percentage of rewards earned by validator consensus group 7 = number of new transactions 16 = initial number of validators in consensus group 100= active threshold (minimum number of validators needed) to start using validators for elections 10,000 = amount of HNT needed to stake 3.6 million = total amount of HNT allocated to Validators in a year
🔥 11
Avatar
That's awesome @cyborg. Thanks. For the last number, that's assuming pre-havening numbers right?
Avatar
Not running CG on Raspberry Pis = priceless
💯 8
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
If we want to introduce hotspot participation in staking (I’m excited here), I think there’s room for that here via DPoS style contributions, perhaps in a future overstaking proposal. It even allows a market to be created where validators vie for attention from hotspot owners ask for their support and offer to share rewards based on getting attention.
Maybe for every hotspot you own a limit is set on the amount that you can stake for example 500 HNT per hotspot. This would also encourage the validators / the validating process to provide coverage.
Avatar
That creates an artificial barrier of 800 validators today. Potentially useful as the network grows, but again, there really shouldn’t be a base requirement that ties one to another. I can see the value of reputation sharing / signaling / pseudo voting via affiliation but it’s unclear to me why one should block another for the existence of a validator. (edited)
Avatar
maybe something like allowing delegation of the miner onboarding fee? then that fee is actually back to being staking (edited)
👀 2
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
jamiedubs
maybe something like allowing delegation of the miner onboarding fee? then that fee is actually back to being staking (edited)
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/23/2021 7:25 PM
maybe you limit each validator to only stake 10K HNT and then you don't have to worry about overstake because it's moot. Then to get anything over that they have to appeal to delegated stakes via this method.
👍 1
19:26
so they have to stake 10K to participate then they have to "earn the vote" of individual gateway stake delegates. Then you can scale the rewards to what share of delegates they attract or something. Gives an incentive to perform but also doesn't let you buy out the group just by piling on stake.
👍 1
19:27
presumably each gateway would be able to change which validator they're delegating to whenever they want (once per epoch).
19:28
pulling this from my #hip-23-decouple-consensus concept(s), but I like your idea of repurposing the onboarding fee @jamiedubs. 👍
Avatar
I think that we should punt on overstake for now. it isn't technically difficult to do, at least in its simpler forms
19:39
instead of iterating on the link between hotspots and validators, I would like to see some solid arguments as to why it should exist at all
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I think that we should punt on overstake for now. it isn't technically difficult to do, at least in its simpler forms
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/23/2021 7:45 PM
don't disagree people keep bringing it up despite you and others having said that already lol
Avatar
Avatar
jamiedubs
Quick poll: do you support approving HIP25: Validators as written? -> https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/master/0025-validators.md 👍 yes 👎 no ♻️ needs more work (edited)
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/23/2021 7:56 PM
based on the "unofficial" vote it seems there is overwhelming consensus on that point. 🙂 maybe the supplementary stuff (stake, overstake, DPoS, etc) needs to go to #hip-discussion?
Avatar
after staking and the 250k block cooldown period would the validator need to restake the 10k hnt again to keep operating?
Avatar
as written, unless you deliberately unstake, the hnt stays locked up. once you unstake, the countdown starts but you can no longer participate in consensus
23:05
but the rewards accrue immediately upon earning, with no lockup
Avatar
have we reached rough consensus yet @jamiedubs
Avatar
Straw poll has been reached, awaiting community call on Wednesday for the next step in the HIP process..
👍 1
Avatar
Yes the call is close enough I think we should just discuss there
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
jamiedubs
Yes the call is close enough I think we should just discuss there
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/24/2021 7:45 AM
27th correct?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/24/2021 11:40 AM
Is there a perm calendar we can subscribe to?
11:40
as opposed to event-by-event
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
Is there a perm calendar we can subscribe to?
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/24/2021 3:30 PM
yes there's a google calendar, 1 sec
15:30
With Google's free online calendar, it’s easy to keep track of life’s important events all in one place.
Avatar
yes, it is also linked at top of community doc in case you forget
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/25/2021 7:03 AM
Oh great, i actually was already subed but i thought just to one event 🙂
07:03
thanks 🙏
Avatar
Avatar
jamiedubs
yes, it is also linked at top of community doc in case you forget
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/25/2021 8:12 AM
yeah that's where I pulled it from 😅
Avatar
Couple questions, and I promise I’ve read a good deal of the thread. 1: will validator nodes be a DIY process or hardware from Helium. 2: should I start setting aside 10000 HNT?
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
Couple questions, and I promise I’ve read a good deal of the thread. 1: will validator nodes be a DIY process or hardware from Helium. 2: should I start setting aside 10000 HNT?
1. Yes, BYOS - bring your own server 2. Isn't this a personal question on what you want to do? Or, are you really asking about the timing?
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
1. Yes, BYOS - bring your own server 2. Isn't this a personal question on what you want to do? Or, are you really asking about the timing?
So say I have 10000 HNT and an AWS EC2 instance, am I ready to roll when this HIP comes around?
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
So say I have 10000 HNT and an AWS EC2 instance, am I ready to roll when this HIP comes around?
yessir
Avatar
Well hot dignity dog
🤩 1
🌭 1
Avatar
you know what to do
Avatar
What would an estimated range of HNT generated by one of these be per week? (if not a verboten question)
Avatar
Depends on the number of validators. There is ~69,000 HNT total rewarded to CG per week (60M / year * 6% CG share / 52 weeks). If there are 100 validators, that is 690 / validator. If there are 10K validators, that's 6.9 per validator. This assumes an average likelihood to be elected and staying in CG. Poor performance and randomness will cause that to vary. Also, this is pre-halving rewards.
Avatar
Fascinating
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
What would an estimated range of HNT generated by one of these be per week? (if not a verboten question)
🍾 1
Avatar
3600% annualized🙄? obviously i reading that wrong
Avatar
that's if there were only 10 validators in the pool. that won't be the case
Avatar
haha i get it. thanks
jamiedubs pinned a message to this channel. 01/25/2021 9:09 AM
Avatar
First week is gonna be crazy, though
Avatar
there's a minimum threshold that's proposed, so we'd ideally need at least 100 validators before the network would switch over
Avatar
Ahh I see. I’ll leave my 401k alone then 😹
Avatar
would be a pretty grim situation if we launched with validators and the consensus group was smaller than it is today
👍 1
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/25/2021 9:14 AM
As long as I have dsl right?
🤣 4
😹 2
Avatar
I will personally dos all home validators off the internet
🤣 3
Avatar
no he won't. but you get the point 🙂
10:06
don't run it at home, please. you'll just encourage a faster implementation of slashing.
👍 3
Avatar
soemtimes you need things to happen to bring on things like slashing
Avatar
that's where evan's promise comes in
Avatar
there was that amazing server that was posted here earlier... it could hold a whole 2 CPUs?
10:41
had extra chips too
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
no he won't. but you get the point 🙂
everything is confusing me today. i don't really follow...are you saying you want all validators in the cloud with one of the 2 or 3 providers? doesn't seem all that distributed
Avatar
not at home, would be a better way to put it
Avatar
I should have been more precise. It's important to the network that validators are running on stable network connections, without things like proxies, NAT, firewalls, etc. This is typically seen at home hence my comment about "don't run it at home" (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
but if you've got a fiber line I would say go for it
💯 1
11:04
just not off a 1998 server please
Avatar
If you're already okay running an ETH2 node at home because you've done your research and you're confident you aren't going to get slashed, it's probably fine to run a Helium validator. I just don't want to end up in a situation where everyone dusts off an IBM Aptiva and yolos some Erlang on there with their dodgy DSL connection. (edited)
🥳 1
☠️ 2
Avatar
yeah, mostly I just want people to take it seriously
💯 1
11:24
I'll leave whether I have the keys to a huge botnet up in the air
Avatar
looks like the exchanges are really embracing staking which seems like a very bad idea for everyone except them. any thoughts on that with helium?
Avatar
2 or 3 providers seems weird, given that those 2 or 3 providers have hundreds of data centers between them
11:27
I don't personally view the idea that a provider would or could blanket ban a particular bit of software as very realistic (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
Well hot dignity dog
wishplorer - helium hiker 01/25/2021 11:29 AM
this could be a good hotspot name too 🙂
😹 1
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I don't personally view the idea that a provider would or could blanket ban a particular bit of software as very realistic (edited)
agreed. i just read it at first as a mandate which i would say seemed weird
Avatar
it's a strong recommendation, I can't mandate anything
Avatar
Avatar
gradoj
looks like the exchanges are really embracing staking which seems like a very bad idea for everyone except them. any thoughts on that with helium?
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/25/2021 11:52 AM
are you speaking to the larger question of custodials?
Avatar
ya i guess. sorry i haven't fully kept up with this channel but does having one of the major exchanges run a validator with millions of hnt staked benefit? i think kraken has 300000 eth staked right now
Avatar
not in the current proposal as there's no overstaking benefit
12:01
they'd have to run hundreds of individual validators
Avatar
Avatar
evan
yeah, mostly I just want people to take it seriously
This is why I love slashing....
👍 1
12:14
From what I've seen most of these exchanges partner with staking providers like Bison Trails... ahem @Austin|Solana
12:14
I don't love slashing, but it forces you to take things a bit more seriously as there are things at stake...
12:15
But that's for future work....
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/25/2021 12:23 PM
Yeah I can sing the praises of slashing for many networks
12:23
It’s not alway needed though. Depends on the network
Avatar
bison is owned by coinbase now. who cares if the exchanges run validators? as long as there is liquidity tied up i am for it.
Avatar
maybe i'll go read backscroll but hopefully this hip isn't just to 'tie up liquidity' (edited)
🙄 1
Avatar
reading is encouraged
Avatar
well thanks but really don't think i'd support a single validator over staking millions of hnt
13:02
so it really isn't about locking up hnt but about running the validator so we have a health functioning network
Avatar
the motivation is in the HIP, in the topic
Avatar
yes, there will be no initial overstake
13:46
we'll decide, later and via the community process, what kind of overstaking we'd like to allow and what it will mean
Avatar
thanks, nice hip
Avatar
Next couple months are going to be #holyshitvalidatorsyesterdaypls with all the new hotspots coming online!
Avatar
Aww yes drop those bad boys in #memes
💯 1
🙏 1
👀 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/25/2021 9:42 PM
"Ghosty boi"....do you happen to have an opinion on stonks..? lol (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
"Ghosty boi"....do you happen to have an opinion on stonks..? lol (edited)
stonks only go up trump 🧠
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
"Ghosty boi"....do you happen to have an opinion on stonks..? lol (edited)
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/26/2021 5:29 AM
GameStop is the next Amazon 🤣 /s
Avatar
Avatar
Joey
Aww yes drop those bad boys in #memes
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/26/2021 5:30 AM
Thanks, don’t know how I missed this channel
Avatar
TheSquatPoppa 01/26/2021 8:35 AM
Hey so I've been reading a little bit about the new HIPs but I have a question
08:37
I've seen a lot of discussion about light gateways and I'm not sure I fully understand the concept and how it would work. Assuming this HIP goes through, is the eventual goal that every gateway would become a light gateway that wouldn't need to stay synced up to the blockchain any more? I think right now staying synced up to the blockchain is what makes them use as much bandwidth as they do and I'm not sure why it uses almost a gigabyte of data every day.
08:37
Basically I'm asking: would having a regular gateway become a light gateway require the owner to do something in order for it to become a light gateway, or would it happen more like a firmware update to all gateways on the network?
Avatar
eventually yes. hotspots will no longer require a copy of the ledger, or to stay in sync with the blockchain. it would be a firmware update
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
eventually yes. hotspots will no longer require a copy of the ledger, or to stay in sync with the blockchain. it would be a firmware update
TheSquatPoppa 01/26/2021 8:39 AM
Ahh okay, thanks!
Avatar
pretty much all the bandwidth usage from hotspots is staying in sync, and gossiping blocks and transactions to other hotspots. it's a peer-to-peer network, so that's how data gets propagated around
👍 1
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/26/2021 9:16 AM
I keep thinking about data validation here
09:16
Long-term Helium could spin up a 2nd type of validator, similar to how Flow has 5 types of validators
09:17
This extra type could use the new bounty function to hunt for fraud. They'd need to be pretty beefy validators as im assuming it's computationally complex to find hotspots that are not where they say they are.
09:17
maybe ill write a HIP later on that
Avatar
I'm not sure that it's necessarily a function for a second type of validators, though
09:18
ideally that sort of protection would be built into the protocol
09:18
it's something that we're actively working towards via a variety of methods
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/26/2021 9:18 AM
Yeah I don't disagree it could certainly be built onto the procol's native operations
09:18
sort of like how Solana does consensus via standard transactions
09:19
But if that fraud computation got computationally "heavy" it could be offloaded (edited)
Avatar
the most effective lever we have is the economic one, in the end. if we can make cheating not pay, cheaters will eventually go elsewhere
💯 1
09:19
yeah, no doubt
09:20
I'm not even opposed to human in the loop solutions
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/26/2021 9:20 AM
Yeah i'd like as little human-in-the-loop as possible:P
Avatar
group curated banlists, cluster hunting bounties, etc
09:20
there's no such thing as trustless infrastructure
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/26/2021 9:21 AM
I'd say that's the very basis of blockchain
09:21
assume nothing is trustworthy, proof it out
Avatar
yeah, I'm saying that while that is the ostensible goal, it absolutely operates within a community that is largely built out of trust relationships
09:22
but this is not #philosophy
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/26/2021 9:22 AM
i want that channel 😛
09:23
Yep totally, i mean right now Helium still has a god-mode active
Avatar
I think that we're about ready to move to multisig chain keys
👀 1
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/26/2021 9:24 AM
yeah i mean, that about 4x'ed polkadot's price when they removed sudo
Avatar
full on-chain governance is a ways off, if it ever makes sense for helium at all
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/26/2021 9:26 AM
Yeah of course
09:26
I'd imagine someday it does
09:26
but, several years off at least
09:26
and polkadot stil has lots off-chain
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/26/2021 9:28 AM
slightly off-topic but related.... are there any good resources for operators/pool staking laws in the US?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/26/2021 9:29 AM
Yeah, what are you looking for?
09:29
most of what's been written is around taxation
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/26/2021 9:33 AM
was concerned around KYC if there is any and if you are allowed to "Lock up" customers HNT or need to offer a way to access these funds on request
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/26/2021 9:33 AM
The tl'dr is no
👍 1
09:33
there is currently no requirement for validator hosts to do any KYC on delegations
09:34
anyone can anonymously stake to, say, Bison Trails validator for any protocol
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/26/2021 10:20 AM
so does this validator host idea decouple consensus rewards from hotspots?
10:21
consensus would move to the validator pool, as would the rewards
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/26/2021 10:35 AM
hmmmm ok. running validator node seems out of my league from reading what people have been saying
10:42
The way it's looking is validators will mostly be those with 'means' (hardware, more capital, commercial-grade internet, dedicated lines maybe, possibly leased commercial space specifically for this, etc). I suppose you may want to 'gate' or 'bottleneck'/narrow down who can be validators, but I'm just not sure this is the way to do it. Is that a valid concern?
Avatar
I'm not sure what you mean
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/26/2021 10:42 AM
I could be misunderstanding 🙂
Avatar
cloud accounts are pretty cheap
10:43
I think that the "means" needed are fairly modest
10:43
as a statement of bias, I'm also in my 40s and in the US tech industry, so 10k HNT also doesn't seem excessive
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
If you're already okay running an ETH2 node at home because you've done your research and you're confident you aren't going to get slashed, it's probably fine to run a Helium validator. I just don't want to end up in a situation where everyone dusts off an IBM Aptiva and yolos some Erlang on there with their dodgy DSL connection. (edited)
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/26/2021 10:48 AM
I suppose this conversation earlier is what was confusing to me @evan . Sorry to tag you, hashc0de. and then I was reading elsewhere about people talking about don't try to run it on old servers, it suggested to me you would need a newer server/specific hardware.
👍 1
10:48
I was not aware that cloud hosting the node was an option
Avatar
some people in this channel seem not to like cloud hosting, (and I think that home hosting is a bad idea), but there is no plan to limit where someone can place something
👍 1
10:50
I think that an old server is fine, FWIW, just not like, a core2duo from 2009
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/26/2021 10:52 AM
I'm not sure I'll get into hosting a validator node, but maybe down the road, if it's still an option. I mostly wanted to know whether it's actually accessible to 'average' people (while being aware that terminology is widely variable depending who you ask what's average)
Avatar
in terms of skills, I feel it's still pretty approachable
10:57
in terms of capital, it's quite hard to say
Avatar
My hope is that once the demand comes, anyone who is less technical but has access to the HNT (because they're already a Hotspot owner) will be able to go to somewhere like allnodes or stake.fish and spin up a validator. The trade off there is trusting someone else to operate it and paying their fees but then all Hotspot owners can participate.
🥰 1
Avatar
do you plan on releasing an amazon machine image or similar + already spec'd out ... might lower the bar a little ?
Avatar
Avatar
stak_at
do you plan on releasing an amazon machine image or similar + already spec'd out ... might lower the bar a little ?
I think a docker image would work best here. Similar to what we do for the miner. It's basically the same code.
👍 1
11:28
The harder part is to configure it. Roughly: you'll need to create a wallet, fund it with your stake, start the validator, 'onboard it' with the validator's key and your wallet (onboard it as a validator, apply the stake from your wallet, etc.), wait for it to sync, wait for it to get elected, win(?)
👍 1
11:28
We need to define all this and work through the UX on this through the Testnet.
Avatar
i was able to spin up a docker for the miner and it was pretty seamless via the guide so with a little hand holding this seems doable. thanks!
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
The harder part is to configure it. Roughly: you'll need to create a wallet, fund it with your stake, start the validator, 'onboard it' with the validator's key and your wallet (onboard it as a validator, apply the stake from your wallet, etc.), wait for it to sync, wait for it to get elected, win(?)
Johnny_Cucuzza 01/26/2021 11:54 AM
It’s similar to a DIY in skill level correct? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Johnny_Cucuzza
It’s similar to a DIY in skill level correct? (edited)
Roughly, yes!
Avatar
Johnny_Cucuzza 01/26/2021 11:56 AM
Awesome. I’m ready.
Avatar
in theory there is nothing stopping folks from using their rpis on home internet as a validator, it is just not ideal
13:27
are there any available stats related to the current performance of the consensus group? like, where is the evidence that rpis on home internet are not sufficient at current or future scale?
Avatar
stats, no, but the writing is on the wall
13:33
I don't have time to qualify that right now, but I can later
13:33
we've already had to decrease the poc rate just to keep up
13:34
gossip traffic is bad, and will get linearly worse with the size of the group
13:34
we've never been able to scale past 16, etc
13:34
I can go into more detail later
Avatar
RX bytes:7394012852 (6.8 GiB) TX bytes:4695166018 (4.3 GiB) that's just under 24h for a typical spot
15:49
now add 10x by the end of the year
15:50
now: libp2p lookups are not optimal, and that could be improved. but the question here is: do we want to not do that, and instead move to something where we a) don't have to expend that effort to stay where we are and b) have a lot more horsepower to make the group more secure
Avatar
Feels like the blockchain is gonna fall over any moment if validators don't become a thing, and fast
Avatar
we've identified a serious issue with the relays that should stabilize things for now
👍 1
15:52
it's been a real slog for the last month+
Avatar
I bet. Debugging a distributed system sounds like a nightmare
Avatar
Want to learn how to deploy Docker containers? Use this step-by-step tutorial to deploy Docker containers on the AWS cloud.
15:58
16:00
Seems potentially easier than making a DIY was
Avatar
I installed this on a machine to mess around it's pretty well done they've made running most nodes pretty much foolproof https://dappnode.io/
DAppNode connects the decentralized internet by allowing a user to conveniently host P2P clients. Run your own node today, and begin enabling censorship free web traffic.
Avatar
Avatar
evan
we've identified a serious issue with the relays that should stabilize things for now
Normaltomb1 01/26/2021 4:40 PM
you have the pull so we can audit it before making it public
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
I think a docker image would work best here. Similar to what we do for the miner. It's basically the same code.
If it's almost the same as the docker image, have you or others noted the miners falling behind on occasion? At least a few of us in the DIY channel had seen it, someone else even wrote a script to check how far behind the miner was lagging and to reboot the aws machine if it really started to fall behind. I've had it happen to mine too - and I first tried to change his script to just restart the docker, but it doesn't help and machine still needs a full reboot. Just concerned this could pass through to a validator running as well which is not as trivial to need to be checking and rebooting.
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
If it's almost the same as the docker image, have you or others noted the miners falling behind on occasion? At least a few of us in the DIY channel had seen it, someone else even wrote a script to check how far behind the miner was lagging and to reboot the aws machine if it really started to fall behind. I've had it happen to mine too - and I first tried to change his script to just restart the docker, but it doesn't help and machine still needs a full reboot. Just concerned this could pass through to a validator running as well which is not as trivial to need to be checking and rebooting.
Definitely something we’re going to need to understand through the testnet and the warm up period.
18:14
We have a few nodes running in aws that are acting as non mining seed nodes already so we have some experience here.
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
The harder part is to configure it. Roughly: you'll need to create a wallet, fund it with your stake, start the validator, 'onboard it' with the validator's key and your wallet (onboard it as a validator, apply the stake from your wallet, etc.), wait for it to sync, wait for it to get elected, win(?)
AddressXception 01/26/2021 6:20 PM
Should hopefully be able to get this down to a terraform deploy config and a script though
Avatar
Avatar
AddressXception
Should hopefully be able to get this down to a terraform deploy config and a script though
Yes please. Get on it 🙂
Avatar
Trying to catch-up a little.... What's to stop one entity (person or company) from coming in and having multiple validators and taking over the entire process. With only 100 validators to start @ 10,000 HNT each it would not be hard to gain a large percentage. With 6% up for grabs the return looks pretty good.
Avatar
that's a lot of money
19:41
our theory is that the pool will expand rapidly past 100 since the returns are so good
19:41
we know most of the big holders at the moment, anyone outside trying it would make a lot of noise buying in
Avatar
It's not like outsiders would not be allowed in.... They would be welcome as they would help the network.
Avatar
My point being that the HIP talks about a diminishing returns. That is easily over come by having multiple validators.
Avatar
yes. there will probably be no overstake at the start
19:48
sorry, I really need to update the HIP as the position has evolved
Avatar
It's probably not going to be popular, but it may be a good time to make ROI more realistic and come up with a different payout.
Avatar
I'd love to hear a numerical proposal
19:50
ideally backed by strong, network-reinforcing reasoning
Avatar
Let me noodle it around. We would want it to be good enough to bring in long-term folks, but not so good that it brings in dash-for-cash folks and the lightweight platform folks.
19:53
How far back should I read to get an understanding of current ideas?
Avatar
sure, how does the existing proposal not meet those goals?
19:54
as far as you like, other than overstake there's not really been big changes to the hip as written
19:54
no one has really addressed payout thus far
Avatar
hope this gets up and running soon
Avatar
there have been a few discussions about network takeover
Avatar
i feel the poor pi cpus are already starting to get taxed
Avatar
the disk is really the bottleneck
19:56
fwiw
Avatar
32gb in them now eh?
Avatar
I think the cool down time frame is way to short. Having something over a year makes more sense to me.
Avatar
bandwidth and latency, not size
Avatar
oh right right
Avatar
Avatar
Longtooth
I think the cool down time frame is way to short. Having something over a year makes more sense to me.
Oh man. I'm used to running a Solana validator where I can unstake in 2 days max...
Avatar
5 months without rewards is rough
19:57
I feel like a year of lockup is hard to sell
Avatar
It depends on what the end game is.
Avatar
There are a bunch of networks that have already solved this problem in their own ways, so I think borrowing from them makes sense
19:58
But also, we can definitely skip this stuff and keep it real simple for the initial batch. We need to get off Pi's
19:59
When Solana started they just had KYC'd validators, 1 node per person
Avatar
You can make it a wild west land grab, or only bring in those who are willing to wait.
19:59
At 6%, it can be very profitable.
Avatar
I feel like we don't have a framework here
20:00
how do we even analyze too long or too short?
Avatar
Probably wouldn't be too hard to have DeWi run KYC and have a 1-3 node limit per person to get the initial 100. Just need to prove you can fund it
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
There are a bunch of networks that have already solved this problem in their own ways, so I think borrowing from them makes sense
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/26/2021 8:00 PM
kinda like how tezos works. 35 day wait then payout every 3 days, IIRC
Avatar
IMO the immediate goal is just get something going
Avatar
too much work IMO
Avatar
KYC? There are platforms that make it ez
Avatar
nah to implement our side
Avatar
Ah right
20:01
Makes sense
20:01
Well anyway I agree that this is a pretty small community and it'd be super unlikely to have anything hostile happen
20:02
And if someone did try to do something, the whales in this community would quickly band together to create a counter strike
👍 2
Avatar
Not worth the risk. Take a little time and think about the possible downside and not just the upside.
Avatar
I mean, we have?
Avatar
I agree it needs to be done, but maybe not at the current earnings rate.
Avatar
The biggest immediate downside I see is the current situation. We can't scale much more on this network of Pi's
💯 3
👆 1
Avatar
the network is alrready getting wonky with the big influx lately
20:05
march will be a sh*t show (edited)
😎 1
Avatar
I should have 10k by March...
🤞 1
Avatar
the perf issues right now are as far as I can tell unrelated to scale
Avatar
libp2p stuff?
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
I should have 10k by March...
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/26/2021 8:06 PM
watch the market pump on the validator scoops alone 😂
20:06
bbl
👍 1
Avatar
Just seems that having an unlimited buy in with this level of returns on the table is going to invite bad actors.
Avatar
it's a fixed pool
20:31
as more people buy in the individual returns get smaller
👍 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/26/2021 8:39 PM
underrated feature; naturally incentivizes only those that are profitable to be run in theory
Avatar
Will there be a way to test if you can make it work without staking? Something similar to setting up the DIY miner prior to asserting location with on boarding code?
Avatar
testnet coming soon (edited)
Avatar
What is the reason that 6% is accepted to be an appropriate piece of the pie to allocate to the validators? Is the percentage selected solely based on its prior selection as the amount to provide for the CGs? As people seem very eager to set up validations in order to claim a piece of that, might that suggest that a 6% allocation might be higher than is needed? (edited)
Avatar
depends on how large you hope the pool grows
22:14
it's definitely something we should discuss on the call
22:14
I don't know how much flexibility we have there
Avatar
My impression is that, ultimately, none of the allocation is written in stone. (Though reallocation of the portion that goes to the investors doesn't seem fair.)
22:25
I also wonder why it is that whenever staking is discussed it seems that 10K HNT is the default for an initial stake... not 5K nor 20K . Is there significance to that particular number that might explain its popularity?
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
GP
I also wonder why it is that whenever staking is discussed it seems that 10K HNT is the default for an initial stake... not 5K nor 20K . Is there significance to that particular number that might explain its popularity?
Same here.
Avatar
It seems like the goal is to maintain a minority of validators within the consensus, whilst also making the stake equity (per validator) significant. Because if the ask price were like 500HNT, then there would be a lot more validators, and the validator CG would be occupied quicker (I think) (edited)
Avatar
And with 20k there would be higher scarcity of validators. So I think the goal here is to have a happy medium between too little, and too much growth of validators
06:31
also if you lower the ask price, (like even to 100HNT), there could be a large amount of people who stake, but don't end up mining/hosting validators. Meaning that you could have a ton of people staked within the Helium blockchain but not providing value through mining/PoC (edited)
Avatar
we want it to be high enough that people are committed, but not so high that people are scared off by the cool down. as with other ultimately arbitrary numbers, it's a matter of judgement. I'd love to have a better way to approach the analysis
Avatar
5000 would be about 4x easier for me than 10000
07:07
In that I could probably get that in 25 days without affecting payouts to hosts, not that my situation should determine the stake
Avatar
Deleted User 01/27/2021 7:08 AM
I still think that 10,000 is a low number but I'm fine with it. It's all about skin in the game.
☝️ 4
Avatar
I'm a big fan of using the market to define prices. This would be more complex, but what about a Dutch auction to set the initial price - define the number of validators that we want, and let people bid what they are willing and then set the price to the lowest value such that we get the minimum number of validators we are looking for.
Avatar
It’d be a shame if a big timer monopolized all the spots, though
Avatar
Deleted User 01/27/2021 7:12 AM
I only know of horror stories regarding dutch auctions especially from ICO days. The problem with that is that the market tends to be rather irrational
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
It’d be a shame if a big timer monopolized all the spots, though
There’s not a fixed number of spots
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
There’s not a fixed number of spots
There would be in the proposed scenario, though
Avatar
I was proposing that as a minimum number of validators - sorry. A starting point
Avatar
Indeed
Avatar
As far as the stake goes: 5000 is doable in a month for someone with 13 hotspots that are placed pretty well that’s paying 50/50, hodling for two+months might not be doable even though it would almost certainly be worth it
Avatar
even if the stake were 100 HNT and extremely accessible, there are numerous wallets that could spin up an enormous army of validators if they wanted https://explorer.helium.com/accounts/richest (edited)
07:23
an argument for overstake imho, so we're at least not pretending like it's hyper-decentralized (edited)
Avatar
BTW, operating hotspots is not the only way to acquire the necessary HNT to stake - others are free to acquire the stake on the market to run a validator. Validators and hotspots serve different functions and we should not be thinking of validating as only a hotspot operator function. (edited)
👍 1
07:26
I believe it ought to be approached like this - first, how many validators does the network need to operate successfully (what is the long term number), second given the risk level of "investing" to standup a validator, what level of return do we think validators will require. Based on that, we can calculate the investment (i.e. stake) amount.
👍 1
07:27
That second question also needs to take into account the cool down period and eventually slashing, so it will not be an easy answer. But perhaps this is where other projects can provide inspiration.
👍 1
Avatar
@evan Do you have a target for number for ratio of validators (actually, block producers) to hotspots? Right now, there are ~1000 hotspots per CG member / block producer. I'm wondering if this scales. It could be uses to potentially determine target number of validators in the pool. Is this a valid way to think about it?
Avatar
Avatar
1dev
It seems like the goal is to maintain a minority of validators within the consensus, whilst also making the stake equity (per validator) significant. Because if the ask price were like 500HNT, then there would be a lot more validators, and the validator CG would be occupied quicker (I think) (edited)
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/27/2021 8:46 AM
I think also that denominating it in HNT also makes it a bit weird in terms of buy-in. Realizing we can't talk 'price', but if HNT has wildly different fiat valuations at different points in time, 10K HNT means different cost/expense, also different amount of opportunity cost. Think for example of buy-in for being an ETH2 validator. 32 eth back in march was kinda 'easy'. Now? ......Just interesting to think about
💯 1
Avatar
For example, if we have 100,000 hotspots we would want a CG of 100 members (based on 1000:1 ratio) and assuming a pool size of let's say 10x, we would thus want 1000 validators in the pool
Avatar
using DC was an early idea. but the downside there is that the stake is burned and can't be recovered
08:47
@PaulM curious - why do we care about the ratio of hotspots to validators? or what's your rationale there
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
I was proposing that as a minimum number of validators - sorry. A starting point
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/27/2021 8:48 AM
I believe ETH2 for example did have minimum number. it was very low I think
Avatar
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae
I think also that denominating it in HNT also makes it a bit weird in terms of buy-in. Realizing we can't talk 'price', but if HNT has wildly different fiat valuations at different points in time, 10K HNT means different cost/expense, also different amount of opportunity cost. Think for example of buy-in for being an ETH2 validator. 32 eth back in march was kinda 'easy'. Now? ......Just interesting to think about
I believe that the stake price should follow HNT circulation/pricing though. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
@PaulM curious - why do we care about the ratio of hotspots to validators? or what's your rationale there
I'm trying to get at how many validators there should be to help back into the staking amount
Avatar
Avatar
1dev
I believe that the stake price should follow HNT circulation/pricing though. (edited)
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/27/2021 8:49 AM
then it varies? Do people already staked in have to put more in, if HNT valuation went down? or just in terms of new validators setting things up? It's interesting, but I think it complicates things I think also that having a set amount of HNT being cost for validator also helps reduce price volatility of HNT actually. The more things you have that have a stable price in the ecosystem the easier it will be for economic system to find a 'fair price' for the buying power of a single coin/token (edited)
Avatar
What about we look at ROI and then back into a stake amount? What is a fair ROI timeframe?
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
I'm trying to get at how many validators there should be to help back into the staking amount
i get that, im just not sure why? seems like more of a basic economics problem. what's the target number of total validators and what would be a reasonable yield for that number
Avatar
If you hit an ROI sweet spot, the numbers will be there.
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
i get that, im just not sure why? seems like more of a basic economics problem. what's the target number of total validators and what would be a reasonable yield for that number
right, but we need the "target number of total validator" - thoughts on how to get that number
Avatar
right now the yield is still very good up into 5000 or so validators
Avatar
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae
then it varies? Do people already staked in have to put more in, if HNT valuation went down? or just in terms of new validators setting things up? It's interesting, but I think it complicates things I think also that having a set amount of HNT being cost for validator also helps reduce price volatility of HNT actually. The more things you have that have a stable price in the ecosystem the easier it will be for economic system to find a 'fair price' for the buying power of a single coin/token (edited)
Yeah. I believe that staking should be a one-time, upfront investment rather than like a subscription model per se. But yeah there are lots of implications for allowing stake prices to be in HNT. Still pondering it. (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/27/2021 8:51 AM
I added a bit to my comment
Avatar
Like, is 5000 the right number? that's my question.
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
Like, is 5000 the right number? that's my question.
i dont think there's a right number. in theory the more validators and the more HNT staked the more secure the network is
👍 1
08:52
ETH2 being a good example, there's already over $1bn worth staked there in 32 ETH increments
Avatar
I think also that having a set amount of HNT being cost for validator also helps reduce price volatility of HNT actually. The more things you have that have a stable price in the ecosystem the easier it will be for economic system to find a 'fair price' for the buying power of a single coin/token
Interesting. One solution for this is using stablecoins instead of HNT for staking payments. Not sure if that's optimal or desirable though. @Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae
Avatar
we already have a stablecoin built into helium
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
i dont think there's a right number. in theory the more validators and the more HNT staked the more secure the network is
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/27/2021 8:53 AM
I believe if you don't set a maximum amount of validators, it's a good thing economics-wise. If ALOT of HNT gets staked and supply drops significantly, value will go up in short-term. It will equal out/stabilize as some may sell off their 'stake/node amount', returning supply (if needed) to the economic system
Avatar
Fair enough. Just trying to put a framework around the 10k HNT staking price as others have pointed out it is somewhat arbitrary.
Avatar
yup, that's why i'm trying to figure out what @PaulM is really trying to accomplish. people will stop staking once that equilibrium is reached. i dont think we need to define it. and it will move as the fiat value of HNT changes
Avatar
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae
I believe if you don't set a maximum amount of validators, it's a good thing economics-wise. If ALOT of HNT gets staked and supply drops significantly, value will go up in short-term. It will equal out/stabilize as some may sell off their 'stake/node amount', returning supply (if needed) to the economic system
Right but then the question is, how do we mitigate monopolization of the blockchain and overstaking? (assuming there is no max limit)
Avatar
Avatar
1dev
Right but then the question is, how do we mitigate monopolization of the blockchain and overstaking? (assuming there is no max limit)
what is "monopolization of the blockchain"?
Avatar
Avatar
1dev
Right but then the question is, how do we mitigate monopolization of the blockchain and overstaking? (assuming there is no max limit)
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/27/2021 8:55 AM
same question that has been plaguing monetary/economic systems creators for hundreds of years, essentially.
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
what is "monopolization of the blockchain"?
Meaning a few "organizations" or "individuals" who stake many times over and host all the validators on the blockchain. Or like have a majority stake in the blockchain as a whole if that makes sense. (assuming there is no limit to validators/staking, like what @Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae was advocating for) (edited)
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/27/2021 8:56 AM
one thing is how new HNT is created, which I think is fair and makes more difficult to gain an economic advantage here (you can't set up a huge warehouse full of hotspot miners, for example)
💯 1
Avatar
IMO there is no way to stop that, as there is no form of sybil resistance for validators (nor should there be imo). if people want to run 10000 validators they will need to acquire an unreasonable amount of HNT to do it
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
IMO there is no way to stop that, as there is no form of sybil resistance for validators (nor should there be imo). if people want to run 10000 validators they will need to acquire an unreasonable amount of HNT to do it
Sure (edited)
Avatar
again we are not the first people to implement a PoS system, there is a ton of prior art here
👍 3
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
yup, that's why i'm trying to figure out what @PaulM is really trying to accomplish. people will stop staking once that equilibrium is reached. i dont think we need to define it. and it will move as the fiat value of HNT changes
I think my question is (and possible realizing the answer is 'no') is whether we care what the equilibrium number is because amount staked (at least now without overstake) drives the number of validators. There must be some minimum number of validators to support the size of the network that we hope to reach, no? or, maybe that number is sufficiently small that we dont care and any reasonable stake amount will produce enough validators.
08:58
I'm talking long term here - like 100k or 1M hotspots
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
I think my question is (and possible realizing the answer is 'no') is whether we care what the equilibrium number is because amount staked (at least now without overstake) drives the number of validators. There must be some minimum number of validators to support the size of the network that we hope to reach, no? or, maybe that number is sufficiently small that we dont care and any reasonable stake amount will produce enough validators.
well remember there's a difference between the pool of validators and the active consensus group. it's unclear how large the CG can get, there is a lot of networking overhead as it gets large. i'd be thrilled if we could have 100 CG members. so in theory, 100 would be the minimum that runs the network securely. i dont think capacity is a concern on this kind of hardware, but we'll see. so really what you get from having thousands of others is diversity and security in the form of more HNT staked, making it harder for an attacker to dominate the CG
09:00
there will still be an election/random process the same way there is today, just with 100 CG participants and a pool of however many validators
09:01
(im making up 100 btw, but 100 or more seems ideal as it becomes very hard to takeover the CG)
09:04
i think in general there is a misconception that more nodes = more performance, i've very rarely seen that be true. a single server is nearly always the fastest solution (IMO)
Avatar
Yeah, makes sense. I get the active number vs. pool. Just seeing if we can somehow tie that target (100 CG members) to something that gives insight into whether 10K HNT is the "right" number. Just exploring the linkage
09:04
100 active members is a concrete target. 10K HNT seems arbitary unless it is tied to a more foundational target - that's all
Avatar
it's always a little bit arbitrary. im not sure for example why ETH 2.0 requires 32 ETH. i've been trying to figure out where that number comes from
Avatar
So you're telling me to stop trying to be so rationale around crypto...😉
😹 1
Avatar
the more and the more diverse the validators the harder to gets for a single actor to halt or censor the chain
09:23
so we are trying to hit some balance between serious people and many people
09:24
in my ideal world there are 5000+ validators
09:24
and no one person or group runs more than 5
09:24
I realize that this is wildly unrealistic
09:25
also a royal pain to orchestrate upgrades
Avatar
So, at 5000, that is 7% yield on 10K HNT up until the having and then it starts dropping. My guess (without much other research) is that is too low given the risk.
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
it's always a little bit arbitrary. im not sure for example why ETH 2.0 requires 32 ETH. i've been trying to figure out where that number comes from
# Serenity Design Rationale See also: the 1.0 design rationale doc from 3-4 years ago https://githu
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
So, at 5000, that is 7% yield on 10K HNT up until the having and then it starts dropping. My guess (without much other research) is that is too low given the risk.
the yield is too low?
Avatar
i'd say so
Avatar
Once the network is proven, probably not. But in the interim, yes, especially with a 5 month cool down - in my perspective at least
09:31
Also, that is pre hardware cost and pre halving. after two havlings, that is 1.75%, right?
09:32
Just to be clear, I totally support validators - again just trying to justify the 10K HNT number
Avatar
yea, getting to 5000 might be tough. that's also 50M HNT staked, which is almost all the circulating supply
09:33
to give you a sense of it, polkadot is the largest PoS network by total value locked. they have 403 validators total (https://polkastats.io)
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 10:30 AM
Yeah followed closely by eth2 😛
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
So, at 5000, that is 7% yield on 10K HNT up until the having and then it starts dropping. My guess (without much other research) is that is too low given the risk.
what is the risk?
10:37
there is no slashing yet
10:37
so there doesn't seem to be any risk to being a validator
Avatar
The price of HNT or the network failing @Tushar, at least in the near term while it is relatively unproven. (edited)
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/27/2021 10:42 AM
If the CG isnt moved off hotspots though the network will fail.
10:45
probably about half way before another poc_challenge_interval increase is needed based on when the last ones were (edited)
Avatar
we've done some things since then that we think will increase the scalability
Avatar
Deleted User 01/27/2021 10:46 AM
Great discussion here, obviously. My opinion is that 10k HNT isn't enough. If we want to attract serious validators to run the network into perpetuity we need to attract people willing to put some solid skin in the game. For those arguing that 10k is a lot, please refer to other chains. Also, delegation can always be proposed and implemented in the future.
Avatar
we also have some stability fixes going in today
10:46
hopefully we can get things smooth for the next few months while we work on this
10:47
@Deleted User do you care to attach a number?
Avatar
Deleted User 01/27/2021 10:49 AM
It's all arbitrary but I would throw out at least 25k and the cool down period should be in blocks e.g. 100 blocks (also arbitrary)
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 10:49 AM
@Deleted User why?
Avatar
the cooldown period is currently 250k blocks
👍 1
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 10:49 AM
like, honestly, with no slashing... part of me wonders why the amount required isn't 1 hnt
10:50
the whole point of a validator having stake on it is to prove they're willing to put assets at risk
Avatar
IMO no slashing is just the starting state
Avatar
yeah, there will almost certainly be slashing eventually
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 10:50 AM
For sure, but...
Avatar
given the urgency of the situation getting something implemented quickly is preferable
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 10:50 AM
I mean we know it's a number we'll have to revise at some point
10:51
so given that, why not make it as open as possible?
Avatar
i wasn't really on the call, but did this HIP get approved?
Avatar
ok then
Avatar
basically pending testnet
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 10:51 AM
yeah i missed the call :/ had a meeting overlap
Avatar
some debate on the amount of stake still
10:52
there will likely be some sort of community approval call for this at the end of the testnet period
Avatar
what were the proposed amounts on the call? sorry i missed it
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 10:52 AM
yeah, I mean, 10k, 25k, whatever at this point 😛
10:52
I guess the thing I'm wondering is, why set stake-at-risk at this point at all?
Avatar
@Keenan much like this channel, there were a lot of feelings and not a lot of numbers 😛
😆 1
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 10:52 AM
since there's no... stake at risk
Avatar
checks wallet may I propose 68?
😂 5
Avatar
Avatar
evan
@Keenan much like this channel, there were a lot of feelings and not a lot of numbers 😛
haha, i mean top 3-4 amounts mentioned?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 10:52 AM
my proposed number would be 1 HNT until we have proposals for slashing
Avatar
@Austin|Solana you want to start at something reasonable
Avatar
oh dear
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
my proposed number would be 1 HNT until we have proposals for slashing
That'd be interesting. But then whoever is willing to spin up the most nodes could just get majority...
Avatar
wont it be hard to change the amount later - if you increase later, what do you do with all the validators with insufficient staked. if you decrease, does over staking kick in - will we have over staking by that time
Avatar
otherwise when you raise it for slashing, all of a sudden no one can be in the group and then you halt
Avatar
Avatar
evan
@Austin|Solana you want to start at something reasonable
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 10:53 AM
Yes, exactly
Avatar
see armans point, this seems like common sense no?
Avatar
1 makes an attack really easy (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
evan
otherwise when you raise it for slashing, all of a sudden no one can be in the group and then you halt
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 10:54 AM
Well, that's why we need to pick the number smartly over time. Right now the goal is to have efficient validators with honestly lots to spare as this will be the most unstable time for the network
Avatar
do it smartly (edited)
💯 3
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 10:55 AM
If we want to set a USD attack threshold I totally get that, but let's do it that way then
Avatar
Deleted User 01/27/2021 10:55 AM
BTW, there are 500+ wallets with 10k+ HNT
Avatar
I personally think 10k seems like a pretty perfect amount, since nobody seems to be coming out strongly in favor of it
👍 2
Avatar
this is simple combinatorics, really, I just haven't run the numbers
Avatar
It's a nice even number that makes thing easier to think about
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 10:55 AM
well 10k HNT is about 2x as much in value as when this HIP started
10:55
😛
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
BTW, there are 500+ wallets with 10k+ HNT
This is only marginally relevant. There is 70M in circulation. Anyone can acquire and then spin up a validator.
Avatar
and if we keep arguing about it being 1 HNT it will be 10x by the time we get anywhere
😆 1
Avatar
"I want to stake 100k HNT so I will run 10 validators"
10:56
ez
Avatar
Deleted User 01/27/2021 10:56 AM
I wish it could be more but yes, 10k is a reasonable number
Avatar
in my opinion the value should be measured in DOGE
😹 1
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 10:56 AM
hahha
10:56
Sure i mean, 10k is as random as any other number thrown out
10:57
my argument was bare minimum or whatever
Avatar
But you see why that would be dangerous right?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 10:57 AM
I don't think 10k is 10,000x safer
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
This is only marginally relevant. There is 70M in circulation. Anyone can acquire and then spin up a validator.
Deleted User 01/27/2021 10:57 AM
That's why I'm advocating for a higher stake
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
I don't think 10k is 10,000x safer
No, but it's probably 100x safer 🙂
Avatar
it is going to be very hard for a malicious actor to overtake the CG @ 10k
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 10:58 AM
Great!
Avatar
I like 5k, but that’s just because my real job is working at a nonprofit
Avatar
if there are 5000 nodes that is 2/3 of the circulating supply
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 10:58 AM
But again it's riskless for them to do it
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
That's why I'm advocating for a higher stake
Not if you believe that there should eventually be 1000s of validators - much higher and ROI is too low (edited)
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 10:58 AM
because there's no slashing haha
10:58
so a few bitcoin bros from 2015 could easily buy enough hnt
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
I like 5k, but that’s just because my real job is working at a nonprofit
Deleted User 01/27/2021 10:59 AM
In other chains people team up. This isn't new
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
But again it's riskless for them to do it
it's not riskless. they have to acquire 10k HNT x whatever number and the volatility and cost in doing that. you are proposing removing any risk at all. it makes no sense
💯 2
Avatar
if you go bare minimum at 1 HNT, I am pretty sure you would see a lot of rpi validators
yolo 2
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
In other chains people team up. This isn't new
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 10:59 AM
there is no delegation yet, so no pooling right now
Avatar
you can pool offline
10:59
you just have to trust someone
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 10:59 AM
woof so high risk
Avatar
are we really arguing that needing to acquire millions of $ worth of HNT to stake is the same as not having to do that?
Avatar
Avatar
evan
you can pool offline
Deleted User 01/27/2021 11:00 AM
Yup
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
are we really arguing that needing to acquire millions of $ worth of HNT to stake is the same as not having to do that?
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 11:00 AM
Nope
Avatar
then what are you saying exactly?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 11:00 AM
There's two competing paradigms for securing networks - mass validators or hyper-trusted
11:00
either is a totally legitimate approach to take
11:01
the 10k requirement sounds fine to me
Avatar
can you show me a PoS network where the cost to stake (in terms of tokens, not USD) is similar to what you are suggesting?
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
can you show me a PoS network where the cost to stake (in terms of tokens, not USD) is similar to what you are suggesting?
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 11:01 AM
eth2 only requires 32 eth
11:01
a ton of people run their validators on Pi's
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/27/2021 11:02 AM
can’t this hip include a vague slashing that is finalized via the test net process?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 11:02 AM
well its already been approved 😛
Avatar
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI
can’t this hip include a vague slashing that is finalized via the test net process?
the goal was to try and get something out the door asap that can be layered on to. personally i'd be nervous about slashing done in a rush
💯 2
Avatar
Deleted User 01/27/2021 11:02 AM
Anyway, once we have the testnet going we'll see what's practical
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 11:03 AM
yeah we'll learn tons in the testnet phase
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/27/2021 11:03 AM
Anything we can do to help test net dev?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 11:03 AM
run a validator once Evan lets us!
11:03
"lets" meaning finishing building it lol
Avatar
I'm part of the way there
11:04
removing overstake means it's less work
🙏 1
11:04
also testing a last minute fix to the damn release this morning
11:04
which should make things even more stable
Avatar
Deleted User 01/27/2021 11:06 AM
For clarity, is more than 10k HNT considered high because it is expensive in USD or because it is a lot of HNT? I ask that because less than a year ago you could get 10k HNT for under $2,000 (edited)
💯 1
Avatar
what did I miss about hip25? Couldn't attend the community zoom
Avatar
rough consensus is pro for the minimal no overstake or slashing version
11:08
there will be another check in call after the testnet has been running for a while
Avatar
so there is now a testnet deployed with validators? (edited)
Avatar
no, the code is not done
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 11:09 AM
There will be soon
Avatar
how can I contribute?
Avatar
how's your erlang and distributed systems experience?
Avatar
blockchainlugano 01/27/2021 11:09 AM
10K is nothing for who lives in America in an area heavily populated, churning out 500+ HNT a month. Where I am i'm lucky to mine 1-3 per day. So essentially i'd have to cough up 15/20k
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
how's your erlang and distributed systems experience?
I've worked with some distributed systems technology (not like kafka, rabbitmq, etc, but devops tech like docker ) and helped out a bit with ethereum before; but haven't written erlang. I write a lot of Go code though. (edited)
Avatar
to be honest, at this point the best contribution would be to let this channel go quiet until the testnet is up
🤙 3
💯 3
Avatar
Deleted User 01/27/2021 11:10 AM
Agreed
Avatar
I don't want to mute it, but I do find it a distraction
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
For clarity, is more than 10k HNT considered high because it is expensive in USD or because it is a lot of HNT? I ask that because less than a year ago you could get 10k HNT for under $2,000 (edited)
I look at it relative to supply not price - because you could always pool (even if off chain)
Avatar
rest assured that it is my highest priority
Avatar
If we want something like 1000 validators, that would be 10M HNT, or 1/7th of current supply
Avatar
Avatar
blockchainlugano
10K is nothing for who lives in America in an area heavily populated, churning out 500+ HNT a month. Where I am i'm lucky to mine 1-3 per day. So essentially i'd have to cough up 15/20k
Deleted User 01/27/2021 11:12 AM
I can lend you the 10k for a pre-determined interest rate (not actually going to do this but just illustrating the possibilities)
Avatar
so the confirmed stake price now is 10k HNT? Couldn't make it to the zoom sadly. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
I can lend you the 10k for a pre-determined interest rate (not actually going to do this but just illustrating the possibilities)
blockchainlugano 01/27/2021 11:13 AM
true true. and it makes sense when looking at 1k validators/supply
Avatar
For now it seems, doesn't mean it can't be debated more since it will after all be a chain variable
👍 1
Avatar
let's just assume that it's in the neighborhood of 8-15k for the time being
11:17
I'll do my best to develop some sort of mathematical framework for modeling the issues around it (edited)
11:17
but that will likely happen later
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/27/2021 12:09 PM
Will there be a video/perhaps tutorial for people to set up a validator? also do you think there would be a tutorial for helping people through hosting one on a cloud server? e.g. for those who have never used cloud services
12:09
#AskingForaFriend
👀 1
Avatar
there will be documentation, for sure
12:10
probably not at the start of the testnet
Avatar
Will we be able to build and test a validator prior to staking?
Joey pinned a message to this channel. 01/27/2021 12:37 PM
Avatar
Deleted User 01/27/2021 12:37 PM
Yes, that is the whole point of the testnet.
Avatar
Austin|Solana 01/27/2021 1:29 PM
v excited for testnet
13:29
we'll break everything and Evan will fix it and we'll break something new
13:29
and then it'll all launch beautifully and no one will know 🙂
13:29
I personally took down Libra testnet at least once
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
I personally took down Libra testnet at least once
humble brag 🙂
Avatar
Deleted User 01/27/2021 1:46 PM
Please shut me down if I'm way off the reservation...
13:47
Since we basically have a stablecoin (DC) can we have the stake in DCs?
Avatar
it's doable...that they can't be transferred is problematic
13:50
they would have to be burned like adding gateway
Avatar
Deleted User 01/27/2021 1:51 PM
That'll be the only "shield" that protects new entrants who want to validate in the future because of course, 10k HNT today is so much different from what it'll be months from today.
Avatar
$10,000 DC burn would be a hell of an entry
Avatar
Deleted User 01/27/2021 1:53 PM
Certainly would.
Avatar
the accounting would be complex for returning anything
14:08
easier to denominate in hnt and reduce it later
14:08
only to the benefit of people if there is overstake
Avatar
oh there'd be no return
14:09
🔥
Avatar
hm, yeah, I don't think that folks would go for that
Avatar
Well.. $10,000 DC burn would be one hell of cooldown period.. aka forever
Avatar
Real skin in the game
Avatar
It could be an option to stake maybe instead of $10k it could be $2k but in DC so the only way to make it back is to be a good validator and be rewarded
14:54
Also.. it’d be more like $20k right now. So maybe $5k DC would be the sweet spot
14:55
I feel like actual stake + cooldown incentivizes you to stick around rather than burnt DC
Avatar
I’d be willing to throw $5k knowing I’m doing it for the network and know I’d stick it out until ROI. But I maybe a black sheep. It’d be a discount in a way with all your skin in the game “all on red” kinda move
Avatar
I have to think about it but gut says i would more comfortable with a stake than a burn - i'm planning to run a validator but might not do so if i need to burn a bunch of HNT
Avatar
But with the rewards you’d get it back
Avatar
how would slashing work?
14:59
Reduce odds of election with each offense?
Avatar
I thought it already had kick out for bad performance. If they are $5k in the hole and the only way to get it back is being legit and getting elected than I’d make sure I was able to get back in as soon as possible (edited)
Avatar
And if it no longer profitable to run the hardware? What;s the option then?
Avatar
That’s the risk right?
Avatar
i guess in tha case it is no different than an onboarding fee - just 100x bigger
Avatar
Either fork up a refundable $20k worth or make all possible efforts to get your $5k back (which would be easy with current numbers) however with the total number of validators in the pool goes up the likelihood of being picked goes down.. (edited)
Avatar
but operating cost is negligible for a hotspot (trumped by the hardware cost); not so for a validator
15:02
anyway, interesting idea - i'll have a think on it some more
Avatar
I do agree it’s a very interesting idea
Avatar
and doesnt change the hip - just tweak the cool down period to be long enough to essentially be infinite
Avatar
I like the burn. It really shows long term is more important then dash for cash. I get the fact that it brings other variables into the decision equation, but you don't want weak hands playing.
Avatar
I don’t think you get many validators if they have to throw away 10K HNT
Avatar
The burn is risky. What if someone decides to burn $1m to control the majority? Then other folks will have to burn at least $1m to do the same
15:17
I also agree it makes the accounting complicated
Avatar
Avatar
Longtooth
I like the burn. It really shows long term is more important then dash for cash. I get the fact that it brings other variables into the decision equation, but you don't want weak hands playing.
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/27/2021 3:29 PM
there are probably other ways to do this.....E.g. make it so that people can only withdraw their initial stake every so often. For example, every 75 days from your initial staking date, there's a 7 day window where your stake unlocks and you can withdraw it if you want
Avatar
Deleted User 01/27/2021 3:30 PM
How would that help the network?
Avatar
I feel like a largeish lockup puts a psychological barrier in front of sending the unstake txn
15:31
if it's burnt, you just turn off your validator and walk away
15:31
(I wanted stake to decay, but I was talked down)
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I feel like a largeish lockup puts a psychological barrier in front of sending the unstake txn
Deleted User 01/27/2021 3:32 PM
I agree. The one way txn sorts of voids the idea of staking DCs
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
How would that help the network?
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/27/2021 3:32 PM
people typically can't react solely on emotion. Why do you think sometimes they close down the stock market if it's extremely volatile at that time? because people are reacting on emotion
15:32
so there's only 7 days out of 82 days (in my example) where a person can react immediately
Avatar
Deleted User 01/27/2021 3:34 PM
Well, we are here to help secure the network and get rewarded in the process. You're best bet is to paint a scenario that involves both.
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/27/2021 3:36 PM
? you'd still get your staking rewards.....and the network would be more secure if there time periods where people can't withdraw stakes and also not everyone's 'withdraw window' is the same time period.
15:36
fail to see how that idea doesn't meet both. I'm not talking about DC stake idea. (edited)
Avatar
you can always just turn the server off
Avatar
Avatar
evan
you can always just turn the server off
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/27/2021 3:37 PM
to get your staked HNT back?
15:37
but that's all the network cares about
15:38
it's functionally the same as unstaking unless you hit the window just right
15:38
just adds variance to people's cooldown windows
Avatar
It’s only offering another method to participate
Avatar
Avatar
Radrob
I don’t think you get many validators if they have to throw away 10K HNT
The idea is not 10k of HNT to DC because of this risk. Instead the special number could be $5k of DC. Meaning that there’s no slashing because it’s already all gone. Instead they either need to spin up enough to try a 51% attack or run it legitimately to get that money back (edited)
16:14
Mind you in theory this also could be implemented in the future since it’s just a “new” payment option.
Avatar
Any other examples of PoS that operates on stake being burned to participate?
Avatar
Do we need to be like others?
Avatar
Not necessarily but live examples of PoS and validators incentive model is probably a good start (edited)
16:21
And I will stick to my thought that very few people will put down a non-refundable deposit to become a validator (edited)
Avatar
You might not but if someone had $5k and belief in the network enough to get that reward it’s easier to get than $20k of HNT. But huge risk. What if your validator is garbage and doesn’t get elected often? Well you took that risk.. The original post by QuantumMechanic doesn’t have overstake, slashing, or a way to undo it because the “security” of the whole model is based on the that risk of and trust based on the value you staked. (edited)
16:30
If the blockchain can regulate the validator with great scrutiny the risk of burning $5k right in front of your face in an attempt to cheat the system is even more risk. At that point you might as well burn $5k worth of dollars in front of you. If the concern is a 51% attack maybe max out the number of validators that are DC funded per election to be less than 50% or whatever the actual trigger is. (edited)
Avatar
there is no 51% attack on the network
Avatar
If all members are owned by the same owner than there’s some sort of attack that possible
16:32
^ which is the main concern for even the HNT stake value today
Avatar
yeah, but it's not nearly as compelling as a 51% attack
Avatar
I’m not the expert of HBBFT and I’m aware that’s it’s not that simple... but it’s the first thing most people think of as the worse case scenario for the blockchain
Avatar
I just wanted to mention it
16:33
a lot of people's threat models seem to include it or something like it
Avatar
What would you call the attack we are concerned with?
16:34
Its probably the most widely known issue/attack when it comes to a consensus protocol. (edited)
Avatar
if you get more than 2/3rds of the consensus group, you can a) halt the chain, b) censor transactions
16:38
if you attempt to change the consensus rules, you'll fork
16:38
if you censor new group elections, no rewards will ever happen
16:40
you could theoretically censor elections to omit ones that don't favor your cabal, but that's time-consuming and the protocol ratchets against it
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/27/2021 4:59 PM
seems like a very irrational actor to do halting of chain or censoring of transactions?
Avatar
If there’s incentive it will be done
Avatar
I guess that's the thing
17:05
there isn't much incentive
17:05
and that's very much the kind of thing where you would incur post-hoc slashing once you lost control of the network
17:06
in the extreme case, the rest of the network would fork away and 0 your stake in the fork
17:06
at best, you'd fork the whole network, dramatically reducing its value
Avatar
Missed the call earlier today but in support of Hip25 and excited to see testnet and details.
Avatar
@Joey timeline for tesnet (aprox) ?
Avatar
Avatar
ionberoiz
@Joey timeline for tesnet (aprox) ?
Just “soon”. It sounds like folks are coming to consensus on what the work should be, now it’s “just draw the rest of the owl” (edited)
19:41
passed 1
😆 8
Avatar
Avatar
Joey
Just “soon”. It sounds like folks are coming to consensus on what the work should be, now it’s “just draw the rest of the owl” (edited)
sounds good to us. anything we can help; WE HERE!
💯 1
19:41
jaja
Avatar
Avatar
Joey
Click to see attachment 🖼️
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/27/2021 7:48 PM
those are some nice circles, man
Avatar
status: somewhere between 1 and 2
Avatar
Asymptotically approaching 2.
psyduck 1
Avatar
disjointed owl bits floating in space
😂 3
🍗 2
🐣 1
Avatar
#soon to be frankensteins owl
Avatar
Could someone explain HIP 25 in easy to understand terms please?
19:00
Would really appreciate it
Avatar
maybe you could let us know what parts of the HIP are unclear?
Avatar
@mbc currently the hotspots perform the "validator" functions. A group of hotspots are randomly selected to validate the data and rewards and write the data to the blockchain. This processing work is getting to be too much for the hotspots. Hip25 described the process of moving this work off of the hotspots and onto dedicated computers. (edited)
💯 1
19:09
Once you have more processing power there are a lot of advanced features that could be built in future HIPS.
Avatar
Avatar
pj
@mbc currently the hotspots perform the "validator" functions. A group of hotspots are randomly selected to validate the data and rewards and write the data to the blockchain. This processing work is getting to be too much for the hotspots. Hip25 described the process of moving this work off of the hotspots and onto dedicated computers. (edited)
Awesome thank you. That was very helpful. And what does this mean for the hotspot owners and their earnings? Anything?
Avatar
It will have no affect on proof of coverage earnings. The rewards for randomly getting into the validator/consensus group will be removed from the hotspots and go to the dedicated validators.
Avatar
I see and does anyone own the validators?
Avatar
Yes, individuals or companies will own and operate these validator nodes. They will all be competing to operate high performance hardware/software. Nodes that have slow internet or go offline will be penalized so there will be a lot of financial incentive to do a good job. This will add security and increase performance of the blockchain. Likely it will require you to stake(hold in escrow) several thousand HNT tokens before you can operate a validator node. This large stake will prevent low quality or malicious operators from running nodes. It also reduces sell pressure on the token. (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
pj
Yes, individuals or companies will own and operate these validator nodes. They will all be competing to operate high performance hardware/software. Nodes that have slow internet or go offline will be penalized so there will be a lot of financial incentive to do a good job. This will add security and increase performance of the blockchain. Likely it will require you to stake(hold in escrow) several thousand HNT tokens before you can operate a validator node. This large stake will prevent low quality or malicious operators from running nodes. It also reduces sell pressure on the token. (edited)
GinslerMaxi 01/28/2021 8:04 PM
How many thousands will be needed to stake?
Avatar
10k HNT has been suggested.
Avatar
Avatar
pj
10k HNT has been suggested.
yeah, between 8k and 15k is currently proposed
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
yeah, between 8k and 15k is currently proposed
GinslerMaxi 01/28/2021 8:17 PM
Any idea about the returns (percent wise of your stake)? (edited)
Avatar
depends on the size of the pool
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/28/2021 8:39 PM
True true tru
Avatar
Avatar
GinslerMaxi
Any idea about the returns (percent wise of your stake)? (edited)
no clue lol. evan is the right guy to ask. this is his baby
Avatar
it's approximately 300k hnt per month. assuming perfect performance and random selection, everyone will spend the same amount of time in the group and thus will get an equal share. so, 300k/num_validators
Avatar
Would i be asking for too much if I asked someone to briefly explain testnet or validators, or is there a video on it?
Avatar
we're making a video next week
Avatar
👍 thanks
Avatar
i assume at the start there will be 100-200 validators. thats just a wild wild guess
20:49
just looking at how many wallets have 10k or more hnt
Avatar
how long can one expect it would take for all this to be implemented and rolled out after the HIP is approved? or we don't have enough information (some details are still missing) to even have an estimate? like, are we talking 3, 6, 9, 12 months? (edited)
Avatar
thats also assuming everyone with 10k or more will immeditely set up a validator, correct? @Keenan
20:57
and is a validator a program we install on an impressive server with impressive internet? for example I have a server not being used aswell as 1gb up/1gb down internet
20:57
aslong as I have the 10k HNT I'm good to go?
Avatar
i think there is like 500 or more wallets with 10k or more
20:58
just assuming some but not all will sign up
Avatar
dont listen to me though, i dont know much about this hip lol
Avatar
you can stake without being a validator
20:59
well for someone who does want to operate a validator node, would I be a good candidate?
💯 1
20:59
or are you not sure quite how it works yet
Avatar
Avatar
para2
how long can one expect it would take for all this to be implemented and rolled out after the HIP is approved? or we don't have enough information (some details are still missing) to even have an estimate? like, are we talking 3, 6, 9, 12 months? (edited)
testnet soon, mainnet??? (edited)
👍 2
21:01
depends on a lot of things
21:03
it's mostly not new code. some new but simple transactions, a new version of the election code to handle the change, some new ledger work
Avatar
@evan did you mean the 300k is split between all the validators? for example if theres 100 validator nodes each will yield ~3000 HNT/month? (edited)
Avatar
👍 thanks
Avatar
I imagine there won't be 100 for long
Avatar
as in you think therell be less than 100 for a while?
Avatar
we will not switch until there are more
22:38
so you'll keep it on the hotspots until there are enough servers to cover the hotspots?
22:39
do you know the approximate number of validator nodes required to be able to switch?
22:39
or does it all just depend on coverage
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
you can stake without being a validator
Deleted User 01/28/2021 10:39 PM
I don't think so. Not with this HIP anyway. For that you'll need dPoS (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Lymph
do you know the approximate number of validator nodes required to be able to switch?
Deleted User 01/28/2021 10:40 PM
100
22:40
hm
22:40
so once theres 100, rewards will be swapped to the servers instead of the hotspots?
Avatar
Deleted User 01/28/2021 10:40 PM
That's the plan
Avatar
Avatar
Lymph
so once theres 100, rewards will be swapped to the servers instead of the hotspots?
Deleted User 01/28/2021 10:41 PM
Keep in mind that these are just consensus rewards. Hotspots will still be mining for PoC
22:42
will it be locked at 100?
Avatar
Avatar
Lymph
will it be locked at 100?
Deleted User 01/28/2021 10:42 PM
Minimum requirement is 100. It can scale from there
Avatar
will rewards scale? or lock at 300k
Avatar
Deleted User 01/28/2021 10:43 PM
Go to sleep Evan.
22:43
@Deleted User any idea if we can have multiple servers in the same location?
22:43
or is it location based much like the hotspots
Avatar
please do not
Avatar
oh okay
22:45
I won't, just curious if it would like hinder performance of other nodes or how it would effect the network
22:45
if its negative no point in doing it
22:46
if it was encouraged or not, etc
Avatar
Deleted User 01/28/2021 10:46 PM
Definitely not encouraged by the engineering team 😉
Avatar
any idea if the rewards will half with the rewards half in august?
Avatar
Deleted User 01/28/2021 10:46 PM
Yes they will
Avatar
so 150k/month after august
Avatar
Deleted User 01/28/2021 10:46 PM
Yup
22:47
speaking of the engineering team, any idea if this task is more CPU/GPU intensive on the system? trying to figure out what I need to prep 😛
Avatar
Deleted User 01/28/2021 10:48 PM
The test net will lay that out
Avatar
Deleted User 01/28/2021 10:48 PM
But something like a T2.Large should be adequate
Avatar
we want to stay green, the move to servers is mostly about better networks without nat and good disk bandwidth
22:51
but there are certain unavoidable scaling factors as the group increases in size. we'll optimize where we can, but eventually it will require modest cpu oomph
Avatar
you said the rewards are split evenly, if I have a better server than someone else are the rewards still even?
22:54
or did you say that assuming everyone has equal performance
22:54
I got a i7-7800X i think thatll probably be good hopefully
Avatar
Deleted User 01/28/2021 10:54 PM
If you have a server with dismal performance you may not be elected to the CG
Avatar
more than adequate
Avatar
alr dope
22:55
what are we lookin at for GPU requirements?
Avatar
oh dope
22:55
okay
Avatar
no gpu required ™️
22:55
lookin forward to it
22:55
sorry for all the questions
22:56
I will definitely be hosting
👍 1
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/28/2021 10:56 PM
Need serious internet to host directly, it seems. Or cloud
Avatar
np, a colleague has a FAQ PR for the hip that I haven't had a chance to merge yet
👍 1
22:57
I got 1gb up/down I think hopefully itll be good enough @Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae
Avatar
a fiber setup will be fine. over the long run we'll be moving to static ips
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/28/2021 10:58 PM
Yea I dont have static lol
Avatar
so you'll need one, but not at first
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/28/2021 10:58 PM
Or fiber
22:58
I would need to do cloud I'm sure if I did it/do it
Avatar
you can get a static IP with a fiber optic setup no?
22:59
am I wrong >.<
Avatar
I just want to discourage people from throwing it on their 25/5 cable
23:00
you will need to ask your ISP, but like I said, it's a problem for another day
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/28/2021 11:00 PM
I just have broadband internet '750 down' that is not really ever 750 lol
Avatar
alr cool (edited)
Avatar
it's the up that I'm concerned with. we should know more when we get to testnet
👍 1
23:01
I didn't do very rigorous measurements in the early days
Avatar
Avatar
evan
it's the up that I'm concerned with. we should know more when we get to testnet
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/28/2021 11:07 PM
Lmao my ISP says "up to 100 mbps upload"
Avatar
@Deleted User
23:12
do you know if the stake is recoverable?
23:12
is it held the whole time the server is up?
Avatar
Deleted User 01/28/2021 11:13 PM
The unbonding period is 250 blocks (edited)
23:13
Approximately 5 months
Avatar
so all the HNT is held for 5 months, and we're given it back afterwards? or
Avatar
Deleted User 01/28/2021 11:14 PM
Check out HIP 25. It's got good info
Avatar
The node will need to have a static IP and few ports (currently 2154 and eventually port 443) open to the internet. A DNS resolvable URL is strongly recommended.
Avatar
when hip-25 references ports, is this the same concept as port forwarding? (edited)
Avatar
Deleted User 01/29/2021 5:12 AM
Yes
Avatar
In the write up, it talks about using cloud miners and what level you would need.. Other than the stake, how is this more secure than the Diy HSs with cloud miners?
Avatar
Avatar
Eddie E.
In the write up, it talks about using cloud miners and what level you would need.. Other than the stake, how is this more secure than the Diy HSs with cloud miners?
Are you reading the correct HIP?
Avatar
25..validators. Under Hardware and Networking.. AWS T2. Large. Unless that is talking about just storing data. It is early...
Avatar
There’s no leveling involved. And there’s no PoC involved, so I’m not sure what you mean re; security?
Avatar
I need to find a write up on this that explains it in such a way that a 9 year old could understand it..
Avatar
there will be a video at some point
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/29/2021 7:44 AM
I looked at AWS cloud options last night and there were so many different ones. I honestly have basically no idea which would be for hosting a validator node. One of the ones I thought might be correct wanted to charge minimum of $1300 CAD/monthly lol, so that can't be right.
Avatar
no I don't think so
07:45
Based on what was described
07:45
that sounds really expensive
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/29/2021 7:46 AM
Agreed
Avatar
I have a i7 7800x and was told that'll be more than enough processing power
07:47
I can build something fairly quickly and easily, just have to figure out how to use linux I suppose
07:47
Think they said it has to be on linux
07:48
and while they said consumer internet wasn't recommended I have fiber 1gb up/down so I think it's good enough
Avatar
the aws instance types should be much less than that
Avatar
Avatar
Eddie E.
I need to find a write up on this that explains it in such a way that a 9 year old could understand it..
ill try and explain, sorry if this is too layman terms. blockchain networks like this require some mechanism for the state of the shared ledger to change. a simple example would be A's balance going up and B's balance going down if B sent tokens to A. these state changes are called transactions. transactions have to be verified to be correct before they can be accepted - for example B has to have enough tokens to send to A. these transactions are bundled together into blocks that affect multiple states at once (for example C sending tokens to D, E sending tokens to F, etc). in helium the way this process works is that a group of nodes (today called the consensus group) have to agree that transactions are valid before forming them into blocks and changing the state of the ledger. the protocol used is called honeybadger bft. today that process is handled by 16 hotspots who are selected at random every ~35 blocks. the problem with hotspots doing this work is outlined in the motivation section of the HIP. the proposal here is that instead of 16 hotspots, who are easily DDOS'd, are low powered pi's and typically behind poor network connections, it would be 100 servers selected out of a pool of ideally thousands of staked validators. the consensus process is the same as it is today, but the equipment is beefier, the network connections better, and the probability of a denial attack on the network reduced as the size of the group is much larger and the validators are motivated (by their staked HNT) to ensure that the network continues to function well (edited)
👍 4
Avatar
Avatar
Lymph
and while they said consumer internet wasn't recommended I have fiber 1gb up/down so I think it's good enough
It’s less about speed and more about reliability.
Avatar
ah well I don't think that'll be a problem either
Avatar
Avatar
Lymph
ah well I don't think that'll be a problem either
And static IP
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
ill try and explain, sorry if this is too layman terms. blockchain networks like this require some mechanism for the state of the shared ledger to change. a simple example would be A's balance going up and B's balance going down if B sent tokens to A. these state changes are called transactions. transactions have to be verified to be correct before they can be accepted - for example B has to have enough tokens to send to A. these transactions are bundled together into blocks that affect multiple states at once (for example C sending tokens to D, E sending tokens to F, etc). in helium the way this process works is that a group of nodes (today called the consensus group) have to agree that transactions are valid before forming them into blocks and changing the state of the ledger. the protocol used is called honeybadger bft. today that process is handled by 16 hotspots who are selected at random every ~35 blocks. the problem with hotspots doing this work is outlined in the motivation section of the HIP. the proposal here is that instead of 16 hotspots, who are easily DDOS'd, are low powered pi's and typically behind poor network connections, it would be 100 servers selected out of a pool of ideally thousands of staked validators. the consensus process is the same as it is today, but the equipment is beefier, the network connections better, and the probability of a denial attack on the network reduced as the size of the group is much larger and the validators are motivated (by their staked HNT) to ensure that the network continues to function well (edited)
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/29/2021 7:52 AM
this would be a good pin
💯 1
Avatar
Yeah it's static
07:52
In other words if doesn't change when router restarts, correct? @Keenan
Avatar
Your ip is from your isp and modem.
07:53
It’s unlikely you have a static ip unless you pay for it.
Avatar
Yeah a dynamic ip would change every time your modem reset correct?
07:53
Oh
07:53
Hm
07:54
Okay I'll check on that ty
Avatar
Not necessarily. I think typical ip lease times are around 2 weeks (edited)
Avatar
A t2.large would be in the neighborhood of 66 USD a month
evan pinned a message to this channel. 01/29/2021 7:56 AM
Avatar
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI
this would be a good pin
done
Avatar
im sure there is detail i am missing that is making evan cringe in my laymans writeup, but hopefully it explains the approximate situation
Avatar
I'm on my phone, I didn't read it closely
Avatar
probably for the best
Avatar
cringing will have to wait
😹 1
07:58
Made sense to me but that's cause I'm dumb
08:00
But you said only 100 are selected out of a thousand? I thought any amount of servers can sign up if enough is staked aswell as the server is good enough
08:00
A combination of the two, including a random selection but not limited to 100
Avatar
think of staking as buying a stream of lottery tickets
Avatar
Avatar
Lymph
But you said only 100 are selected out of a thousand? I thought any amount of servers can sign up if enough is staked aswell as the server is good enough
ideally the pool is thousandS
Avatar
Ahh kk
08:02
Yeah I've done a bit of scrolling up over the night and got a better understanding of staking hnt
08:03
Seems like that'll be the hardest part for people like me
08:03
But at the end of the 5 months the stake is refunded correct?
08:03
It's only collateral
Avatar
ideally the number would be greater than 100 in the group at a time, but there are some limits from a performance point of view
Avatar
@Lymph no
08:04
you can ask for a refund and get it back
08:05
but then you're out of the group
Avatar
Oh yeah I understand that but
08:05
I mean like what happens when the group expires after the 5 months
08:05
You just get it back automatically?
Avatar
Deleted User 01/29/2021 8:06 AM
You misunderstood. There's no expiration. The stake can be there into perpetuity.
08:06
So once your in the group your in there aslong as you don't pull out?
Avatar
Deleted User 01/29/2021 8:07 AM
However, should you choose to pull out, the cool down period is about 5 months. You'll get your stake back
Avatar
Ohhh okay
08:10
I have so many questions but it's probably just best to wait :p
08:10
Until things are more finalized
08:10
Im sure alot of things are still being decided
Avatar
there are two groups here: the validator pool and the block production group
08:11
you stake to get into the former, which the latter is chosen from every 30ish minutes
08:12
if you get in, you get a reward at the end of your service, which is usually around two hours
08:13
And the validator pool is the 100 we were talking about?
08:13
Where you have to stake HNT
08:13
To be selected
Avatar
Avatar
Lymph
To be selected
It will be a transaction that’s part of setting up a validator node
Avatar
100 is the minimum size at which we will move block production over from the hotapots
Avatar
we hope it will rapidly grow into the thousands
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
ill try and explain, sorry if this is too layman terms. blockchain networks like this require some mechanism for the state of the shared ledger to change. a simple example would be A's balance going up and B's balance going down if B sent tokens to A. these state changes are called transactions. transactions have to be verified to be correct before they can be accepted - for example B has to have enough tokens to send to A. these transactions are bundled together into blocks that affect multiple states at once (for example C sending tokens to D, E sending tokens to F, etc). in helium the way this process works is that a group of nodes (today called the consensus group) have to agree that transactions are valid before forming them into blocks and changing the state of the ledger. the protocol used is called honeybadger bft. today that process is handled by 16 hotspots who are selected at random every ~35 blocks. the problem with hotspots doing this work is outlined in the motivation section of the HIP. the proposal here is that instead of 16 hotspots, who are easily DDOS'd, are low powered pi's and typically behind poor network connections, it would be 100 servers selected out of a pool of ideally thousands of staked validators. the consensus process is the same as it is today, but the equipment is beefier, the network connections better, and the probability of a denial attack on the network reduced as the size of the group is much larger and the validators are motivated (by their staked HNT) to ensure that the network continues to function well (edited)
Thanks.. I copied this over to read later..
Avatar
Avatar
Eddie E.
Thanks.. I copied this over to read later..
im not sure if it helps answer the question or not, but maybe it's useful context
Avatar
I was just confused with if you only had to put in 10k to be the first 100, are you in for aslong as you don't pull out, and once there are thousands it becomes more competitive and people have to start staking more HNT to be selected, etc (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
im not sure if it helps answer the question or not, but maybe it's useful context
I am sure it will answer many of my questions.. I wish I could devote as much time time as I did before to understanding everything going on.. But now there is so much happening so fast I can't keep up.. And work is getting crazy busy again. I miss the time I had during the lock down.
Avatar
Avatar
Eddie E.
I am sure it will answer many of my questions.. I wish I could devote as much time time as I did before to understanding everything going on.. But now there is so much happening so fast I can't keep up.. And work is getting crazy busy again. I miss the time I had during the lock down.
could be a lot worse
Avatar
True.. And it may get there.
Avatar
well let's hope not
Avatar
Wife has surgery next week.. Gonna get a bit worse for me anyways..
Avatar
sorry to hear it. hopefully nothing too serious
Avatar
hope you and your family stay safe and your wife recovers quickly
Avatar
Thanks.. Will give me some time to process this HIP stuff.. 😋
Avatar
fwiw - found this much easier to compare instances https://www.ec2instances.info/
Avatar
@here thanks for your engagement and q's, also big thanks to @evan for answering, to let evan get back to building, we've included an FAQ to the hip here: https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/master/0025-validators.md#frequently-asked-questions
Helium Improvement Proposals. Contribute to helium/HIP development by creating an account on GitHub.
🙏🏼 5
👍 2
Joey pinned a message to this channel. 01/29/2021 10:43 AM
Avatar
i have a question not answered in faq. but likely that is because there is no good answer for it. how long will the testnet need to run for?
Avatar
no great answer. "as long as it needs to run in order for us to feel confident that the configuration and the UX works but not too long so we continue to have to limp along for block production"
Avatar
thats what i figured the answer would be
Avatar
i think cyborg can probably talk a little bit more about timelines once we enter the testnet phase, we'll be calling mainnet validators to action as people start to bring testnet ones online.
10:49
just because we're confident that we can run them doesn't mean the community is prepared to so it'll be a partnership.
10:49
also we have the plan to get to 100 validators before we even turn it on and we could consider making that a larger threshold.
Avatar
blockchainlugano 01/29/2021 11:04 AM
with the tentative 100 validators, is there a general hope that they are located in different geographic locations? Shouldn't they be fairly spread out over the regions currently using the network, and not per say 80% in America? Or does it really not matter at this stage?
Avatar
sure we definitely want to encourage different locations
☝️ 1
Avatar
a fun idea would be to have a prize of some sort for staking a node in a new az or az equivalent for the major cloud providers
11:15
be the first person to stake in GCloud Brazil and get N HNT from DeWi
👍 1
11:15
note this just came to me and has a low percentage chance of happening
11:16
maybe I will give one bone to each of these people
11:16
a pdf of the transaction so you can print it out and frame it
Avatar
By large disk storage what sizes are we thinking in terms of estimates?
Avatar
128GB+ for the medium term, nothing huge
👍 2
11:31
recall that the current gateways only have 16
11:31
faster the better, though
Avatar
Avatar
evan
128GB+ for the medium term, nothing huge
Cheers. 🙂
Avatar
Distributing via a docker file will make it easier on folks not familiar with building from binaries. Also helps when keeping up with new versions and distribution
Avatar
we hope to have docker images and cf templates etc available during the testnet period
Avatar
Avatar
evan
we hope to have docker images and cf templates etc available during the testnet period
when testnet?? 🤣
Avatar
I’ll be ready to run on the testnet but probably need more time to scrounge up a stake, will that be possible?
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
I’ll be ready to run on the testnet but probably need more time to scrounge up a stake, will that be possible?
what about your heloc idea hahaha
Avatar
It’d take about 80 days to convert my mortgage to a HELOC so like....
11:51
😹😹😹
Avatar
hahaha
Avatar
And HR isn’t budging on the 401k (edited)
Avatar
how much hnt you still need to reach 10k? if you dont mind me asking
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
I’ll be ready to run on the testnet but probably need more time to scrounge up a stake, will that be possible?
Deleted User 01/29/2021 11:52 AM
I can lend you 10k HNT, for a cut in the rewards
👍 1
Avatar
I believe the proposal is that the testnet would operate on a test chain - with test tokens. Your HNT piggy bank is safe.
Avatar
*piglet bank
Avatar
Avatar
Joey
I believe the proposal is that the testnet would operate on a test chain - with test tokens. Your HNT piggy bank is safe.
☹ GHOSTY BOI 01/29/2021 12:05 PM
ultra rare limited edition coins you say 👀
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
It’d take about 80 days to convert my mortgage to a HELOC so like....
not financial advice but i'd probably not mortgage my home here.
😹 2
Avatar
Avatar
Joey
I believe the proposal is that the testnet would operate on a test chain - with test tokens. Your HNT piggy bank is safe.
Correct. The testnet will have a separate genesis block and a separate set of tokens.
Avatar
Approval x-post from GitHub: https://github.com/helium/HIP/issues/111
I am pleased to recognize rough consensus on building and testing phase 1 of validators for the Helium network. I'll be marking this HIP Approved in a separate pull request. While there are a number of questions about the details of phase 2 mechanics like overstaking, delegation, slashing, and even the size of the stake, everyone agrees that maintaining efficient block production by moving it off the radio miners is critical. I kindly request that the core development team begin work as soon as reasonably possible. * Discord straw poll (34 yes, 0 no, 0 needs-work): https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/1903/106323602-af679a00-6245-11eb-8e12-0642b0677169.png * Notes from community call: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bMm2alBigBj3detA775Dn0Gz9UM5XczAeK9vnjBB3l0/edit#heading=h.8jsmkeqnkzhu
(edited)
👏 5
jabba 1
Avatar
is there a sign up list for volunteers to host testnet validators? Am I getting way ahead of ourselves?
Avatar
Avatar
olb1ue
is there a sign up list for volunteers to host testnet validators? Am I getting way ahead of ourselves?
Helium Improvement Proposals. Contribute to helium/HIP development by creating an account on GitHub.
🙏 2
Avatar
So technically you would not have to have any physical hardware just a AWS instance?
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
Eddie E.
So technically you would not have to have any physical hardware just a AWS instance?
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 01/29/2021 1:27 PM
It is possibly the better option for many
Avatar
Avatar
Eddie E.
So technically you would not have to have any physical hardware just a AWS instance?
exactly right
Avatar
Well then where do I sign up for the lottery pull?
Avatar
testnet coming soon, then signup/staking
Avatar
Deleted User 01/29/2021 1:28 PM
Have your stake ready
👀 1
Avatar
locked and loaded squirrel f.....just squirrel
💯 1
Avatar
Deleted User 01/29/2021 1:28 PM
Oh, I am ready AF
💯 1
Avatar
ditto
💯 1
Avatar
I'm going to spend some quality time with the back scroll... And will be ready. Maybe a good question to add the FAQ would be how to be selected or apply or...well you get the idea.
Avatar
day one!
Avatar
Avatar
Eddie E.
I'm going to spend some quality time with the back scroll... And will be ready. Maybe a good question to add the FAQ would be how to be selected or apply or...well you get the idea.
once staking is open, you'd stake the 10k HNT (probably via CLI). no real signup or approval process, it's all on-chain
Avatar
I thought I saw something about limiting the number of stakes to 100 or something at first
Avatar
nope, there's no limit to the total pool. it's likely that something around 100 would be selected per epoch (replacing the 16 of today). but that 100 number is dependent on how performance goes during the testnet. the bigger it is the better, but i don't think we know exactly how big it can go before running into performance issues
13:33
so your odds of being in the consensus group are n/m where n is the size of the group, and m is the total staked pool of validators
Avatar
there is also an initial threshold
Avatar
Makes sense.. I'll keep an eye out and peruse the back scroll.
Avatar
and rough guess of how many people will stake in the first month or so? im assuming 200 ish?
Avatar
and if a question isn't answered in the FAQ, please ask and we'll add it.
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
and rough guess of how many people will stake in the first month or so? im assuming 200 ish?
i'd be surprised if it's only 200
13:36
it's just too lucrative at that size
Avatar
i guess it depends on how many have 10k. not sure how many wallets are above that threshold
Avatar
there's at least 500, and within that i'd expect many would stake several times
Avatar
thats true
13:37
i could stake twice myself....i get it now. thanks!
Avatar
you know what to do
Avatar
patiently waiting 🙂
Avatar
keenan, i'll send you a wallet address. you can stake me as much hnt as you'd like.
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
keenan, i'll send you a wallet address. you can stake me as much hnt as you'd like.
no cap?? woohoo!
Avatar
i would be surprised to see less than 1000 validators a month in
Avatar
wait, i found a better offer. if i send this guy 100hnt, he send me back 10000 hnt.
13:53
hahah
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
no cap?? woohoo!
yeah can't say they'll go anywhere but my kids' hnt fund.
Avatar
the annual return @ 1000 validators is 36%
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
yeah can't say they'll go anywhere but my kids' hnt fund.
well, if its for the kids....
Avatar
Avatar
Raf
i would be surprised to see less than 1000 validators a month in
same, it just wouldn't make sense for it to happen
Avatar
what do you mean?
Avatar
the return is too good
Avatar
oh, it wouldnt make sense to see less than 1000
Avatar
people will just pile in
13:55
very bullish
Avatar
I may have to stake a few and then break that code path "accidentally"
Avatar
Avatar
Raf
oh, it wouldnt make sense to see less than 1000
yea, sorry. exactly
Avatar
i got confused with all the negatives
Avatar
it was not clearly worded
Avatar
(I'm kidding, obviously)
Avatar
evan thanks for your work on this, im pretty pumped about it
🙌 1
👍 1
Avatar
If its very lucrative, then Helium Networks would have the most HNT right? So they could just stake away : )
Avatar
Avatar
j0nta
If its very lucrative, then Helium Networks would have the most HNT right? So they could just stake away : )
You mean Helium Inc?
14:16
We actually don’t have the most HNT. We are not even in the top 4!
Avatar
Yeah, probably. Whichever entity receives a lot of HNT currently
14:16
Oh not? I thought I read that a big chunk of HNT went to Helium and its investors (edited)
14:17
Like 35%?
Avatar
We get around ~11% total. Investors get the other 23%
Avatar
ah okay, but 11% of the total is still pretty good
14:17
start saving up!
14:17
;D
Avatar
Depends on your lens. Some crypto projects have the founding team with 50% or more pre-mined
Avatar
yeah ouch, not very nice
Avatar
See the blue part? Those are the insider coins retail will never access until they're dumped on you. Might as well add the pink part too, since most treasuries are "on-chain governance" insider controlled anyway. The Ethereum killers are toothless. Distribution is everything.
Likes
304
14:18
In visual form
14:19
So 34% total is relatively small (and no foundation carve-out), especially as it’s earned over time (edited)
Avatar
Still on the hunt for 1 HST. Hahah
Avatar
buy it on the market ;D
Avatar
surely if you throw big enough numbers around, someone will get greedy
Avatar
100000 dogecoins perhaps?
Avatar
WSB focused on them today. Crazy!
Avatar
Sky’s the limit!
Avatar
Yeah there's probably a big enough number. Just no market to trade them though.
14:28
and with that, we're probably edging towards exchange talk. carl's about to come in and hit me.
😹 2
Avatar
What’s the keyword? Nodle
Avatar
Carl-bot BOT 01/29/2021 2:29 PM
cool story
Avatar
Excellent
Troll 3
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
We actually don’t have the most HNT. We are not even in the top 4!
whats the best source to find wallet info and top holders? im curious to see where top hotspot productivity is occurring.
Avatar
Avatar
Hashem
whats the best source to find wallet info and top holders? im curious to see where top hotspot productivity is occurring.
🙏 1
Avatar
Avatar
Hashem
whats the best source to find wallet info and top holders? im curious to see where top hotspot productivity is occurring.
jas_williams 01/29/2021 4:08 PM
From the api get the to 1000 richest accounts ? https://api.helium.io /v1/accounts/rich
Avatar
cool!!
Avatar
563 potential wallets and i'm sure there's more possible.
Avatar
damn the two binances have almost 17M (edited)
16:30
weak hands
😂 4
🧻 1
Avatar
already, thats nuts.
Avatar
Is there a way to see who’s mined the most?
Avatar
Deleted User 01/29/2021 6:08 PM
Sitebot
Avatar
With the move of validators will the actual blockchain ledgers only be on the validators?
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
With the move of validators will the actual blockchain ledgers only be on the validators?
Not as part of this first step, no
Avatar
I was just thinking about it since the light hotspots won’t have a copy I was wondering where it was going to end up.
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
I can lend you 10k HNT, for a cut in the rewards
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 01/29/2021 7:49 PM
and we're back to DPoS
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
I was just thinking about it since the light hotspots won’t have a copy I was wondering where it was going to end up.
Light gateways and validators are not the same thing.. separate project. But to answer your question, light gateways won't hold a copy, they get the info they need from a validator
Avatar
note that it will always be possible to run an unstaked chain follower
Avatar
real quick
22:25
sorry if thsi question has been asked
22:25
testnet does not require a stake correct?
22:26
it's just as it sounds, testing if its a good idea, giving a chance for people to test their stuff, and then signing up/staking?
Avatar
also, you don't have to stake to get into the block production group, so in the chance you cant put out enough HNT to stake to get into the validator group, your machine won't be a complete waste and you can still run it under the block production group, correct? @evan
Avatar
Avatar
Lymph
it's just as it sounds, testing if its a good idea, giving a chance for people to test their stuff, and then signing up/staking?
testnet will require stake, but in nontrading tokens
22:54
you just ask and we'll give you enough to stake
Avatar
Avatar
Lymph
also, you don't have to stake to get into the block production group, so in the chance you cant put out enough HNT to stake to get into the validator group, your machine won't be a complete waste and you can still run it under the block production group, correct? @evan
for either network, staking will be required for block production group membership
Avatar
ohhk, sorry I mustve misunderstood what you said earlier then (edited)
22:57
Thank you 👍
Avatar
the subtlety is this: staking gets you into the pool. the group is selected from the pool every half hour or so
👍 1
22:59
you get rewarded for being in the group
Avatar
thats for the block production group correct? (edited)
22:59
sounds fair enough
Avatar
will validators require the full blockchain like an etl? Or will they use snapshots?
Avatar
unknown
Avatar
What is a DNS resolvable URL? Anyone? An example if possible (edited)
13:11
obviously not set up
Avatar
I am interested in staking but do not have the technical knowledge to run a validator myself. Can anyone share resources to learn about staking as a service offerings? Any insight on the fees I should expect?
Avatar
I haven’t kept too much up to date with the validation as it’s unlikely I’m going to be able to run one. However, the gateways will still mine? What kind of percentage with the validators be taking?
Avatar
consensus groups will be removed from hotspots responsibility
10:42
but they will still mine, yes (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Dava
I haven’t kept too much up to date with the validation as it’s unlikely I’m going to be able to run one. However, the gateways will still mine? What kind of percentage with the validators be taking?
i think consensus group is 6%? dont quote me on that tho
passed 2
Avatar
Avatar
Jonah P
I am interested in staking but do not have the technical knowledge to run a validator myself. Can anyone share resources to learn about staking as a service offerings? Any insight on the fees I should expect?
I’m thinking about running validators as a service and haven’t figured out fees yet, but likely have a variable price a % of HNT or a fixed USD price (whichever is more Valuable at the time)
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
I’m thinking about running validators as a service and haven’t figured out fees yet, but likely have a variable price a % of HNT or a fixed USD price (whichever is more Valuable at the time)
I would love something like this - this may be a silly question but would this require giving up custody of our HNT (outside of bonding/staking the HNT)? Or would we be able to bond/stake directly from our own wallets somehow?
Avatar
I think the way it’s currently set up it would require giving up custody or sharing wallet details. My guess is that a better/more secure way of doing this will be on the way, but for now it would require trust.
11:56
*and for now is down the line because it’s not even to testnet stage
Avatar
ok sounds good - I'll stay tuned until there are more details. I would love if there was a nomination system (similar to polkadot) but with my limited technical knowledge I am not sure if that is feasible here.
12:02
last September someone posted a detailed video on running a helium miner on digitalocean - if anyone were able to put together a detailed step by step video like this for running a validator using AWS or something similar it would be amazing!
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Sent
last September someone posted a detailed video on running a helium miner on digitalocean - if anyone were able to put together a detailed step by step video like this for running a validator using AWS or something similar it would be amazing!
I think Helium will be putting together a cheat sheet for running a validator through AWS much like their DIY miner guide
Avatar
that would be helpful! 🙂
Avatar
Why 10,000 HNT? Is it better to limit the amount of people?$20k-25k is not casual money for most people. If you want it to be a more exclusive kind of thing then 10,000 makes sense. That wouldn’t exactly be in keeping with “the people network” though. I think it’s a great idea. Though I think there’s a perspective that people who are not going to be vocal here (this Discord can be intimidating for some people) are going to feel they’re losing an opportunity to make HNT (even if it’s a long shot) and given to group of people who have more money and make the decisions. That is not my opinion. It is a perspective we need to take into consideration. We’re taking something away from people, whether it was a long shot or not, for the good of the network or not, people don’t like things being taken away from them. And then giving it to a smaller group of people who can afford to buy it doesn’t make swallowing it any easier. Again, It also doesn’t exactly come across as “the People’s Network.” To me the questions come down to is it better to have more people or less people participate? Does it even make a difference? What is Helium’s image and is it going to be affected by this. If that’s a consideration. Maybe it’s not even a concern. I have a background in PR/marketing so thats how I look at everything. I don’t know whether it makes a difference to have more or less people participate or not. I’m not really familiar with this so I don’t have a position yet. I think it’s a good idea. I think it also needs to be done. It’s the how I think that needs to be considered a bit more. This is also one of those things where people don’t want to be perceived as not being able to afford it so they’re not going to say anything. I guess the initial question is if the requirement for 10,000 were lowered what would that change? What would be different?
Avatar
From what I've read I think they wanted the stake to ensure that it isn't your average joe running it, if you put up the HNT to stake then you're proving that you're willing to offer a service unlike the rest, I think uptime/internet speed is important.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
Why 10,000 HNT? Is it better to limit the amount of people?$20k-25k is not casual money for most people. If you want it to be a more exclusive kind of thing then 10,000 makes sense. That wouldn’t exactly be in keeping with “the people network” though. I think it’s a great idea. Though I think there’s a perspective that people who are not going to be vocal here (this Discord can be intimidating for some people) are going to feel they’re losing an opportunity to make HNT (even if it’s a long shot) and given to group of people who have more money and make the decisions. That is not my opinion. It is a perspective we need to take into consideration. We’re taking something away from people, whether it was a long shot or not, for the good of the network or not, people don’t like things being taken away from them. And then giving it to a smaller group of people who can afford to buy it doesn’t make swallowing it any easier. Again, It also doesn’t exactly come across as “the People’s Network.” To me the questions come down to is it better to have more people or less people participate? Does it even make a difference? What is Helium’s image and is it going to be affected by this. If that’s a consideration. Maybe it’s not even a concern. I have a background in PR/marketing so thats how I look at everything. I don’t know whether it makes a difference to have more or less people participate or not. I’m not really familiar with this so I don’t have a position yet. I think it’s a good idea. I think it also needs to be done. It’s the how I think that needs to be considered a bit more. This is also one of those things where people don’t want to be perceived as not being able to afford it so they’re not going to say anything. I guess the initial question is if the requirement for 10,000 were lowered what would that change? What would be different?
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 02/01/2021 12:14 AM
.....learn to use paragraph structures. no one wants to read a wall of text like that. just my opinion though. no offense meant (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae
.....learn to use paragraph structures. no one wants to read a wall of text like that. just my opinion though. no offense meant (edited)
You can’t do that on the iPhone app. It is what it is. If someone doesn’t want to read it they don’t have to.
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
You can’t do that on the iPhone app. It is what it is. If someone doesn’t want to read it they don’t have to.
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 02/01/2021 12:19 AM
really? even on my android I can do that....
Avatar
No. You can’t hit enter or return to start a new paragraph. You can only do it if you write someplace else and then paste it in. I didn’t expect to write that much.
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
Why 10,000 HNT? Is it better to limit the amount of people?$20k-25k is not casual money for most people. If you want it to be a more exclusive kind of thing then 10,000 makes sense. That wouldn’t exactly be in keeping with “the people network” though. I think it’s a great idea. Though I think there’s a perspective that people who are not going to be vocal here (this Discord can be intimidating for some people) are going to feel they’re losing an opportunity to make HNT (even if it’s a long shot) and given to group of people who have more money and make the decisions. That is not my opinion. It is a perspective we need to take into consideration. We’re taking something away from people, whether it was a long shot or not, for the good of the network or not, people don’t like things being taken away from them. And then giving it to a smaller group of people who can afford to buy it doesn’t make swallowing it any easier. Again, It also doesn’t exactly come across as “the People’s Network.” To me the questions come down to is it better to have more people or less people participate? Does it even make a difference? What is Helium’s image and is it going to be affected by this. If that’s a consideration. Maybe it’s not even a concern. I have a background in PR/marketing so thats how I look at everything. I don’t know whether it makes a difference to have more or less people participate or not. I’m not really familiar with this so I don’t have a position yet. I think it’s a good idea. I think it also needs to be done. It’s the how I think that needs to be considered a bit more. This is also one of those things where people don’t want to be perceived as not being able to afford it so they’re not going to say anything. I guess the initial question is if the requirement for 10,000 were lowered what would that change? What would be different?
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 02/01/2021 12:23 AM
that sucks. on mine, there's an enter/return button on the keyboard that goes to next line. button next to text is how you send message.
Avatar
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae
that sucks. on mine, there's an enter/return button on the keyboard that goes to next line. button next to text is how you send message.
It would be better if the iPhone app had that. It doesn’t make any sense.
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
Why 10,000 HNT? Is it better to limit the amount of people?$20k-25k is not casual money for most people. If you want it to be a more exclusive kind of thing then 10,000 makes sense. That wouldn’t exactly be in keeping with “the people network” though. I think it’s a great idea. Though I think there’s a perspective that people who are not going to be vocal here (this Discord can be intimidating for some people) are going to feel they’re losing an opportunity to make HNT (even if it’s a long shot) and given to group of people who have more money and make the decisions. That is not my opinion. It is a perspective we need to take into consideration. We’re taking something away from people, whether it was a long shot or not, for the good of the network or not, people don’t like things being taken away from them. And then giving it to a smaller group of people who can afford to buy it doesn’t make swallowing it any easier. Again, It also doesn’t exactly come across as “the People’s Network.” To me the questions come down to is it better to have more people or less people participate? Does it even make a difference? What is Helium’s image and is it going to be affected by this. If that’s a consideration. Maybe it’s not even a concern. I have a background in PR/marketing so thats how I look at everything. I don’t know whether it makes a difference to have more or less people participate or not. I’m not really familiar with this so I don’t have a position yet. I think it’s a good idea. I think it also needs to be done. It’s the how I think that needs to be considered a bit more. This is also one of those things where people don’t want to be perceived as not being able to afford it so they’re not going to say anything. I guess the initial question is if the requirement for 10,000 were lowered what would that change? What would be different?
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 02/01/2021 12:25 AM
maybe they could make it scale kinda like they were considering over-staking. So at 5000 HNT you get 35% of the 'full' rewards that a 10K stake would, and then it would continue to scale up to 100% of 'full' reward at 10K. Just make it so that the 'half-stake' or lower amounts are worth much less, almost exponentionally. E.g. if you can only stake 20% of the 10K, then you only get 5% of the rewards instead of 20% However, that is a more complex implementation. and more complex means there's more things that can go wrong, like more lines of code, etc. At least that's how it was explained to me from an eth dev perspective of why they didn't want to implement a more complex solution to a problem. they often view more complex as less secure, so they'll opt for simpler where they can. (edited)
Avatar
For the sake of simplicity of implementation (read the motivation section again to get a reminder of the real reason for this), we decided not to propose things like understake/overstake. I can imagine that IaaS providers (staking providers) will prop up if there's demand. They could, potentially offer these services and maybe even pooled staking with a fee.
00:29
As far as overstake, I can imagine this will be quickly requested, proposed, and something we look at if someone comes up with a model that makes sense. It can't just be "stake more, get elected more". It likely needs to be some kind of diminishing returns.
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
As far as overstake, I can imagine this will be quickly requested, proposed, and something we look at if someone comes up with a model that makes sense. It can't just be "stake more, get elected more". It likely needs to be some kind of diminishing returns.
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 02/01/2021 12:33 AM
I guess I was suggesting the reverse of overstake, yes. in the opposite direction, to allow for a larger pool of validators and arguably more decentralized. And you could 'diminishing return' it in the reverse way. so low stakes get much lower returns. so people are still incentivized to stake the full 10K if they can, but those with lesser means can still participate. pooling could be another external option/solution
00:33
staking pools exist for eth2 for example
Avatar
I think we're saying the same thing, then. Staking pools on ETH2 are operated by IaaS providers. (edited)
00:34
They run your node and you stake your ETH.
👍 1
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 02/01/2021 12:44 AM
Yeo
00:45
Yep, well I was saying two different options. Pooling was the external one
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
It would be better if the iPhone app had that. It doesn’t make any sense.
jas_williams 02/01/2021 12:45 AM
On iPhone if you switch to numbers an enter key appears to do new lines
Avatar
Avatar
jas_williams
On iPhone if you switch to numbers an enter key appears to do new lines
Really? Wow. All this time I’ve been driven crazy with not having that and it’s right there the whole time 🤦‍♂️
👍 1
00:50
When this was being written HNT was about $1.30-1.40. That’s a different amount of money than at this moments price of $2.50. And hopefully even higher when this goes through.
Avatar
From reading this chain it seems that a lower barrier to entry would be better to get the amount of validators that are needed and wanted. And several people have have mentioned they want to do it but financially it would be a stretch. I don’t think anybody here who would be committed enough to get the equipment alone would be any kind of average Joe. I wouldn’t describe the people who are here regularly and are active in the community as average anything. (edited)
Avatar
One of the things we plan to do is open up staking as an action you can do before the mainnet launch happens, likely a few weeks into the testnet launch. I suspect we'll have way more information on how many validators we will get then.
01:21
The good thing is that these things are chain variables and if we end up finding out that the top 500 accounts aren't interested in operating validators, we'll need to change our tactics.
Avatar
The top 500 accounts? I think you’ll want the most updated research for wallets to disqualify.
Avatar
I don't think we should be in the business of censoring wallets. Unfortunately, the hnt can move and wallets are effectively free to create so it's pretty much impossible anyway. (edited)
Avatar
Gamers can be validators?
Avatar
How would you censor a gamer?
01:27
Let's assume you wanted to in the first place. I'm still very much anti-censorship for this purpose but for the sake of argument. (edited)
Avatar
By the the identified wallets.
Avatar
Okay. And if I move my 10k hnt from a "gamer" wallet to any other wallet?
01:27
Or flush it through an exchange to "anonymize" it?
Avatar
Well then why do anything to prevent it or discourage it? Just condone it. (edited)
Avatar
Let's take a different perspective on it. If a gamer decides to start staking, yes they are earning a return on their stake but they're also locking up their HNT and the entire network is more secure because of it.
Avatar
I have no words for this. I will let someone else debate this because I’m sure they’ll be plenty of people who will. So, let’s take the 6% for CG away from the honest people and put it in a special fund that the Gamers will have exclusive access to is what that is. It is also unconscionable. I guess I actually had a few words. (edited)
Avatar
I think it's important to stick to the motivations of this proposal. We need block production to stay stable. I have no reason to believe that gamers are going to be the primary beneficiaries of introducing this new class of miner in the ecosystem and I'm sure that there's no reasonable way to censor them even if we wanted to.
💯 4
01:53
I also believe that infrastructure providers will offer any non-technical Hotspot owners the ability to participate given demand. (edited)
01:56
The 6% reward isn't a "bonus" or a UBI. It's paid for doing work (block production). As the network grows, it's becoming harder and harder to do that work. We also know that as 100k new hotspots come online this year (or more), hotspots will be elected even less frequently than they are today.
💯 4
Avatar
Does anyone have some estimate of how disk usage will grow with time or any more details on the hardware requirements except for what is written in the HIP?
Avatar
i dont think itll be very much if all you need is ~100gb for now (edited)
👌 1
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
I have no words for this. I will let someone else debate this because I’m sure they’ll be plenty of people who will. So, let’s take the 6% for CG away from the honest people and put it in a special fund that the Gamers will have exclusive access to is what that is. It is also unconscionable. I guess I actually had a few words. (edited)
There’s really no way to enforce what you’re describing here. Why go through the effort of implementing a blacklist (even if I did agree with it) if all a gamer has to do is transfer their HNT to another address? As abhay mentioned, what the network should care about is stability and incentive for the validators to do the right thing
Avatar
@capcom Even more of a reason to not make it cost prohibitive for people. On the one hand there’s a need for a hundred or more validators and then on the other hand we’re going to offer it to people with the most HNT in their wallet? Why does someone need to have the most HNT in their wallet? Or did I misunderstand that? It’s one thing not to block them it’s a whole other to offer CG up to them on a silver platter. Would each wallet then be offered an opportunity to be a validator? So one person who has 15 wallets can do 15 validators? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
@capcom Even more of a reason to not make it cost prohibitive for people. On the one hand there’s a need for a hundred or more validators and then on the other hand we’re going to offer it to people with the most HNT in their wallet? Why does someone need to have the most HNT in their wallet? Or did I misunderstand that? It’s one thing not to block them it’s a whole other to offer CG up to them on a silver platter. Would each wallet then be offered an opportunity to be a validator? So one person who has 15 wallets can do 15 validators? (edited)
You can pool HNT, yes. The blockchain has no concept of people. Just addresses and tokens. The point of making the cost high is to make sure there is incentive to make sure the network works well. If you had $25k on the line you are probably going to pay closer attention to the validator you are running and make sure it works well, than if you have $500 on the line. That is the general concept behind Proof-of-Stake networks, we are far far from the first to implement such a system
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
When this was being written HNT was about $1.30-1.40. That’s a different amount of money than at this moments price of $2.50. And hopefully even higher when this goes through.
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 02/01/2021 6:38 AM
Interesting thought experiment to wonder if eth2 staking would have cost some high number of eth if it was deployed near the start of ethereum network. Say before ethereum ever omce got above $50. Would the developers have chosen 32? If it was like $5
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
@capcom Even more of a reason to not make it cost prohibitive for people. On the one hand there’s a need for a hundred or more validators and then on the other hand we’re going to offer it to people with the most HNT in their wallet? Why does someone need to have the most HNT in their wallet? Or did I misunderstand that? It’s one thing not to block them it’s a whole other to offer CG up to them on a silver platter. Would each wallet then be offered an opportunity to be a validator? So one person who has 15 wallets can do 15 validators? (edited)
Also it’s not an “offer” system. There’s no limit. Anyone with sufficient HNT can create the staking transaction and participate. Many will not be existing participants in the network
Avatar
Money is relative. 25k to some people is nothing. And the people with the most HNT in their wallet are the people that it’s going to mean the least to. The offer aspect is how that statement about the 500 wallets came across. That’s what my issue is with.
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
Money is relative. 25k to some people is nothing. And the people with the most HNT in their wallet are the people that it’s going to mean the least to. The offer aspect is how that statement about the 500 wallets came across. That’s what my issue is with.
It was just to give a sense of how many wallets currently have that kind of balance. Otherwise irrelevant
06:51
The 10k number is still up for debate though so I’d focus your arguments there rather than blacklists, which don’t really make sense in this kind of system
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
It was just to give a sense of how many wallets currently have that kind of balance. Otherwise irrelevant
Well that’s not how that came across at all. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But like I said it’s one thing not to block them but another for those 500 accounts to be given the opportunity first. I had written earlier when this was being written the price was around $1.29 - $1.40 I imagine the thought was 10k-15k. Which would be more like 5000 HNT which is more doable for more people I’m sure. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
Well that’s not how that came across at all. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But like I said it’s one thing not to block them but another for those 500 accounts to be given the opportunity first. I had written earlier when this was being written the price was around $1.29 - $1.40 I imagine the thought was 10k-15k. Which would be more like 5000 HNT which is more doable for more people I’m sure. (edited)
Understood. As an example you could get 100 friends who contribute 100 HNT each and one of them runs the actual validator server. Would work fine
Avatar
@Tushar , reading through the last community call doc I saw your link to Google Sheets for estimating mining rewards. I have a similar sheet with some additional variables you can modify that I can share if you'd like. Would be good to get a second set of eyes on it before posting it publically.
Avatar
happy to take a look @geophokus
Avatar
@evan
07:04
Ok, I'll DM you the link
Avatar
sorry, I wanted to include you on the above comment. My bad. You're welcome to look at the sheet as well since you mentioned above about a spreadsheet with returns.
07:06
let me know if you'd like me to send the link
Avatar
I can in a bit, this is before my usual working hours. feel free to post if you feel comfortable before then (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
@Tushar, says you're not receiving DMs from others or I'm not sharing a server. Thought maybe it was because my alias here was different than on HeliumEx or something but apparently not
Avatar
added you as a friend just now
👍 1
07:14
please try again
Avatar
Johnny_Cucuzza 02/01/2021 7:16 AM
Here’s my small thought. If it is too cheap, and there’s thousands of validators then the returns would not be worth it for the monthly cost of a reliable VPS. (edited)
07:19
That’s what most people will be looking at.
07:19
I’m happy to run at a loss to support the network.
Avatar
@evan how are location assert fees and transaction fees treated? are they burnt in the name of the validator group, thus driving incremental HNT rewards for the validators? or are they just burnt without impacting rewards?
Avatar
iirc the big fees are burnt and the txn fees go to the group, but I'll need to double check in a little while
Avatar
ok sounds good thanks
Avatar
I'll need to look at some actual rewards to see if those fees are in any way significant
Avatar
Avatar
Johnny_Cucuzza
Here’s my small thought. If it is too cheap, and there’s thousands of validators then the returns would not be worth it for the monthly cost of a reliable VPS. (edited)
I agree. I think there’s some room between too cheap and 10,000 Hnt though.
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
I agree. I think there’s some room between too cheap and 10,000 Hnt though.
Another thought experiment is that making it high can encourage other use cases and therefore participants in the network. For example someone might loan you 10k as the returns are somewhat known. The primary concern for this HIP should always be the security and performance of the network, so we should think from that lens. That will often be at odds with being equitable
Avatar
having mining pools will solve the concern about 10,000 HNT being too high of a barrier to entry
💯 2
Avatar
yea I think we need to break away from the mindset of validators being part of the people's network from that perspective. I view the people's network as the literal Lorawan network and not the blockchain behind it. Putting a hotspot in a window and letting it run is very different from running a validator and not everyone will be able to pick up the necessary skillsets for it (this should be ok). Being able to pool is how people without the skillset and equity can get into the validator game
Avatar
I know delegation to pools was not part of the original HIP but given the repeated feedback that 10,000 HNT is too high, it might make sense to adjust the plan to include delegation from day 1
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Another thought experiment is that making it high can encourage other use cases and therefore participants in the network. For example someone might loan you 10k as the returns are somewhat known. The primary concern for this HIP should always be the security and performance of the network, so we should think from that lens. That will often be at odds with being equitable
I don’t really experiment with my thinking. I kind of did all my experimenting back in my 20’s. 😜If the original thought was $10k-$15k worth of Hnt would be the what would motivate the Validators to do a good job then it’s just an adjustment to the amount of HNT. (edited)
Avatar
For those heavily involved with this HIP, how do you prioritize among the main considerations when deciding that 10k cutoff? I see 3 main variables - 1) total amount of HNT staked to reduce floating supply 2) amount for one stake to ensure validators are run properly and reliably 3) number of total validators to ensure validator pool is reliably large. What do you find to be the most important for the growth of the network and is there a way to model what level is best?
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
I don’t really experiment with my thinking. I kind of did all my experimenting back in my 20’s. 😜If the original thought was $10k-$15k worth of Hnt would be the what would motivate the Validators to do a good job then it’s just an adjustment to the amount of HNT. (edited)
for me it was never about a translation to USD terms, more a thought around the circulating supply. not to say that using USD is a bad proxy, but it has some questions
07:52
we do have a USD-pegged stablecoin inside the system already, it's just not very flexible for things like staking and recovering. i did propose simply burning the DC to become a validator, but no one really liked that idea 🙂
witness 1
Avatar
Johnny_Cucuzza 02/01/2021 7:54 AM
I agree with the 10k not more.
Avatar
Depends on if the validators will piggyback off the normal reward transaction. Which it should, and if it does and reward splitting is implemented with those transactions you essentially have yourself a pool right? I liked the idea of DC to run a validator but suggested $5k DC instead of the $24k HNT
Avatar
How much HNT people feel is too much is going to be directly related to how much it’s worth
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
How much HNT people feel is too much is going to be directly related to how much it’s worth
it should be directly related to the ROI
Avatar
Which at the suggested minimum to start of 100 validators with an election size of 16 you’re looking at a very small ROI period
Avatar
Should and is are very different.
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
Which at the suggested minimum to start of 100 validators with an election size of 16 you’re looking at a very small ROI period
the suggestion is a group size of 100, not 16
Avatar
The validator size is 100 but I was told group during operation will start at 16.. and not all 100 being part of the group producing blocks
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
The validator size is 100 but I was told group during operation will start at 16.. and not all 100 being part of the group producing blocks
no. 16 would be a failure IMO
07:57
id expect at least 2000+ validators in short order, as the ROI justifies it
Avatar
where is the part that says anything about 16, other than the reference to the current system?
07:59
oh, sorry im blind
07:59
A: Validators will be randomly chosen similarly to how Hotspots/Gateways are chosen. For the initial mainnet launch there will be 16 but this number will increase.
07:59
that should be a temporary state though. i know our target is to be around 100, or whatever can be supported
Avatar
I actually re-read it again thinking I pasted the wrong link. In the beginning it will be a gold rush but once the size increase it will still have a really good return
Avatar
yea, there's a few spreadsheets that have been shared
Avatar
So if I did the math right it and it’s 6% of rewards it comes out to 2,376,000 HNT a year. Does that sound right?
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
So if I did the math right it and it’s 6% of rewards it comes out to 2,376,000 HNT a year. Does that sound right?
08:05
you have to factor in the cost of running the validator too here, $100/mo is probably realistic
Avatar
Johnny_Cucuzza 02/01/2021 8:08 AM
Nice spreadsheet! I somehow missed that. I still think 10k is nice. Maybe no lower than 8
Avatar
How did he come up with 360,000 year if it’s 6% of rewards?
Avatar
I strongly support 10k. There are plenty of network participants who can afford it, and those who can't can pool their stake. In the future, we can add delegation to make this even easier. The purpose of adding validators is not to make running one accessible to everyone, but rather to make the network secure. I think some folks who are arguing for under 10k also don't understand the technical proficiency that will be required to run one and keep it maintained.
💯 7
08:10
The part of the network that's explicitly "for everyone" is LoRaWAN mining--PoC and DC rewards.
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
How did he come up with 360,000 year if it’s 6% of rewards?
(5,000,000 * 12 )* 0.06?
08:11
then he's assuming 10 validators there
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
I strongly support 10k. There are plenty of network participants who can afford it, and those who can't can pool their stake. In the future, we can add delegation to make this even easier. The purpose of adding validators is not to make running one accessible to everyone, but rather to make the network secure. I think some folks who are arguing for under 10k also don't understand the technical proficiency that will be required to run one and keep it maintained.
You’re argument is people who don’t want to spend 10k don’t understand the technical proficiency that will be required to run one and keep it maintained? You actually think that?
Avatar
Johnny_Cucuzza 02/01/2021 8:13 AM
A lot of very non-technical people built DIYs (edited)
Avatar
Yes, based on some conversations I've had privately, I do think that some people arguing for under 10k do not understand that this won't be a "plug and play" experience like the hotspots.
08:14
Not all of course.
Avatar
It’s not 5million though right? 1.7mill goes to the Investors and then 3.3 mil for rewards.
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
It’s not 5million though right? 1.7mill goes to the Investors and then 3.3 mil for rewards.
it's 6% of the 5 million, the same reward pool that goes to the consensus group today (edited)
Avatar
Ok. I thought that was 6% of the rewards not the total. So that’s even more.
08:18
I think he’s missing a zero
Avatar
right. which is why i don't think there's really much concern about whether the fee is too high to get a large number of validators. that will be driven off the yield rather than the absolute cost
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
I think he’s missing a zero
no, remember you have to divide by column A
Avatar
Deleted User 02/01/2021 8:19 AM
Arithmetic
Avatar
It’s each. I see
Avatar
Deleted User 02/01/2021 8:20 AM
Out of curiosity, @jaxtonv what number do you propose?
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
It’s each. I see
right, so if there were only 10 validators (there wont be) you would earn 360k/yr for your 10k stake
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
right, so if there were only 10 validators (there wont be) you would earn 360k/yr for your 10k stake
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 02/01/2021 8:23 AM
I wonder what a realistic HNT earnings estimate would be for a 10k stake
Avatar
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae
I wonder what a realistic HNT earnings estimate would be for a 10k stake
see the sheet pasted above, it's a pretty simple formula
Avatar
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae
I wonder what a realistic HNT earnings estimate would be for a 10k stake
If you can realistically estimate how many people will stake...
Avatar
I think they said 100 validators is the minimum limit, so 3k HNT/month I think @Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae
08:24
but thats highly unlikely, people think therell be alot more than 100
08:24
but again im not really sure how it works
08:24
if there is only 100(which is the minimum) then it'd be 3k/month (edited)
Avatar
I’m good with the original dollar amount. So 5000 HNT. I look at things in dollars. If HNT continues to climb and bu the time this goes through and it’s over $3 that’s $30k. I don’t want to tie $25k or $30k up
Avatar
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 02/01/2021 8:25 AM
Hmm based on spreadsheet, and being bear, am thinking it may take a year to make back your stake
08:25
Which is pretty good
08:26
Could be more obv
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
I’m good with the original dollar amount. So 5000 HNT. I look at things in dollars. If HNT continues to climb and bu the time this goes through and it’s over $3 that’s $30k. I don’t want to tie $25k or $30k up
Deleted User 02/01/2021 8:27 AM
This is exactly why it makes sense for 10k+ HNT
👍 3
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
I’m good with the original dollar amount. So 5000 HNT. I look at things in dollars. If HNT continues to climb and bu the time this goes through and it’s over $3 that’s $30k. I don’t want to tie $25k or $30k up
I mean, if it goes to $10 that's still $50k. And you should be willing to put up that much to secure the network if you want to run a validator. That's the whole point.
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
I’m good with the original dollar amount. So 5000 HNT. I look at things in dollars. If HNT continues to climb and bu the time this goes through and it’s over $3 that’s $30k. I don’t want to tie $25k or $30k up
yea but the network is now twice as valuable as it was when 10k was proposed. shouldn't it cost twice as much to secure it?
😸 1
💯 2
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
This is exactly why it makes sense for 10k+ HNT
Or 10k of HNT. That’s reasonable to me.
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
I mean, if it goes to $10 that's still $50k. And you should be willing to put up that much to secure the network if you want to run a validator. That's the whole point.
Please don’t should me.
Avatar
Is there a plan for an easy way to pool? Like will there be a system maybe or is this something we have to deal with personally
Avatar
Avatar
Lymph
Is there a plan for an easy way to pool? Like will there be a system maybe or is this something we have to deal with personally
no plan, at least no in this first version. i would expect third parties like stakingfacilities, bison trails, etc to offer an easy user experience for this
08:29
ty
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
Please don’t should me.
Just my opinion. I think it should be 10k.
Avatar
Deleted User 02/01/2021 8:33 AM
10k HNT is reasonable but I'm of the opinion that it should be at least 20k or even more - avoids "weak hands" running validators.
Avatar
QUICK STRAW POLL: How do you feel about requiring 10k stake for initial validators? 😁 10k HNT is reasonable ⬇️ The value should be lower ⬆️ The value should be higher
😁 49
⬇️ 15
⬆️ 22
trescommas 3
Avatar
20k+ seems like
08:34
a bit too high imo atleast, how many wallets have 20k+? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
10k HNT is reasonable but I'm of the opinion that it should be at least 20k or even more - avoids "weak hands" running validators.
you could do some kind of DC burn that expires after some number of blocks so you have to keep burning more. that would be interesting
Avatar
if we need minimum 100
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
Just my opinion. I think it should be 10k.
That’s fine. What works for you and what works for someone might not be the same but it doesn’t mean it’s any less.
Avatar
Deleted User 02/01/2021 8:35 AM
It's what works for the network lol
💯 1
Avatar
$5000 worth of DC burnt every 500k blocks or something would be interesting
08:35
500k is too long. but something like that
Avatar
Deleted User 02/01/2021 8:35 AM
That's interesting
Avatar
Wouldn't that have the same net effect as lowering the rewards?
Avatar
i also think the cost rising as the value of the network increases is correct, so keeping it in HNT terms is probably the right thing to do
💯 3
08:36
if it's too cheap to attack the network then presumably it will get attacked
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
QUICK STRAW POLL: How do you feel about requiring 10k stake for initial validators? 😁 10k HNT is reasonable ⬇️ The value should be lower ⬆️ The value should be higher
keep in mind that if HNT fiat value increases by a factor of 10, you might be done adding new validators to the network (or only limited to pools and/or institutions). Might need to qualify with "How do you feel TODAY". Of course that could be adjusted later as a community. Not sure if that actually happens. (many other cryptos have gone down this route)
🚀 1
08:38
then the "attack" can come from external large entities
08:38
hostile takeover may be a better description in that case
Avatar
yea. im not sure if everyone fully understands the gravity of those kinds of circumstances and why we should make it as prohibitive as possible for them to ever happen
Avatar
Avatar
geophokus
keep in mind that if HNT fiat value increases by a factor of 10, you might be done adding new validators to the network (or only limited to pools and/or institutions). Might need to qualify with "How do you feel TODAY". Of course that could be adjusted later as a community. Not sure if that actually happens. (many other cryptos have gone down this route)
Definitely a good point. Reducing stake amount in the future might make sense. What probably makes even more sense is adding overstake and delegation.
👍 2
08:40
But we are discussing a v1 proposal here which to me is just fuck we need validators now let's get them off the ground ASAP. Nothing permanent.
😆 4
👍 1
Avatar
right on. Gotta git er done right now!
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
But we are discussing a v1 proposal here which to me is just fuck we need validators now let's get them off the ground ASAP. Nothing permanent.
True. Are validators on the testnet yet?
Avatar
Not yet. @evan is working hard on it.
🙏 1
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
But we are discussing a v1 proposal here which to me is just fuck we need validators now let's get them off the ground ASAP. Nothing permanent.
Then don’t make it cost prohibitive for people who can provide just as good a service. (edited)
Avatar
@jaxtonv I think it's important to consider the other cost of reducing the minimum stake. If someone has 1m+ HNT (which multiple entities currently do), they have to run 100 validators to use up all their HNT. If you reduce the minimum stake to 5k HNT, they now have to run 200. This doubles the cost and increases the complexity. So the main effect you have is driving cost up and reducing ROI for all participants. (edited)
08:47
Of course this also applies if you have 10k HNT that you want to stake. Now instead of running 1 validator, you must run 2. This will increase the operational burden for smaller participants significantly, since they are less likely to have the time or resources to invest in automation. (edited)
Avatar
I strongly support validators with a 10K stake. I think this will be great for the network and am wholeheartedly on board! 🚀
Avatar
Avatar
smeagol
I strongly support validators with a 10K stake. I think this will be great for the network and am wholeheartedly on board! 🚀
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 02/01/2021 8:56 AM
You would, Gollum. You would...😒 😈
😆 1
Avatar
precious...
Avatar
I bid 10,001 hnt. Always works on the price is right.
08:59
In all seriousness. I support 10k.
rawrmaan pinned a message to this channel. 02/01/2021 9:04 AM
Avatar
10,002 imo
Avatar
Pinning the straw poll to get as many votes as possible. Current results: ==10k HNT: 12/17 (70%) >10k HNT: 4/17 (24%) <10k HNT: 1/17 (6%) (edited)
Avatar
kindof dishonest to pil >=10k with >10k no?
09:07
i dont mean that in a rude way
09:07
i just mean like
09:07
should be seperated since thats how they were presented?
09:07
I guess 10,001 is pmuch the same as 10k
09:07
idk
09:07
kinda hard when you arent putting an exact number on it i suppose
09:07
thats better
Avatar
For sure! Good feedback, just added that.
Avatar
sorry if that came out as rude
09:07
didnt mean it like that
Avatar
No problem 🙂
09:09
Yeah I actually just took out the >=10k altogether, it doesn't make sense
Avatar
trescommas emoji response only...
Troll 2
honeybadger 1
Avatar
I see where it comes from, just kinda looked skewed and weird as the % didn't add up to a hundred
09:10
I suppose it doesn't have to if you're proposing the numbers that way but yeah
Avatar
who needs tres commas when 10k hnt in bones is cuatro comas
😆 2
Avatar
Sorry I haven’t scanned through the history yet so apologize if it’s been answered. Any plans or ideas on enlisting beta validators? I’d be interested
Avatar
Avatar
BigSkyTech
Sorry I haven’t scanned through the history yet so apologize if it’s been answered. Any plans or ideas on enlisting beta validators? I’d be interested
yes, a testnet is coming soon
Avatar
Thanks! I’m assuming an Azure instance wouldn’t be an issue?
12:15
Or, maybe it would😜. Now that I think about it
Avatar
nope, all good
Avatar
Look at that straw poll. Pretty clear less than 10k is the far minority.
Avatar
i also voted for tres commas
Avatar
It would be great if folks in the community figure out how to run the nodes in azure and document it for others
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
i also voted for tres commas
10k is already cuatro commas bones. 🚢
Avatar
few understand this
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
It would be great if folks in the community figure out how to run the nodes in azure and document it for others
^
Avatar
This might be a dumb question, but if there are 100 validators does that mean all of them split the 6% or it is still random with a much higher chance?
Avatar
Avatar
Jason.G
This might be a dumb question, but if there are 100 validators does that mean all of them split the 6% or it is still random with a much higher chance?
there are two sets of entities: the pool of validators who have each staked 10,000 HNT, and the active consensus group (which we hope would be around 100 validators). the active consensus group is randomly selected from the pool of validators. over time you'd expect the distribution to be even if they are all performing well. so the earnings are effectively the 6% split between the total pool of validators
Avatar
Avatar
jaxtonv
I agree. I think there’s some room between too cheap and 10,000 Hnt though.
@jaxtonv i think 10,000 HNT per validator is too small and there's some room above 10,000 to be considered.
Avatar
ok so it would be random within the pool still
13:44
10k HNT is a lot
Avatar
Avatar
Jason.G
ok so it would be random within the pool still
that's right yup. there's no limit on the number of validators who can stake, other than the circulating supply of HNT of course
Avatar
i guess the question is, is the cost of a AWS rig worth the 6%?
Avatar
Avatar
Jason.G
i guess the question is, is the cost of a AWS rig worth the 6%?
there's a spreadsheet in the pinned section of this channel that shows how much HNT would be earned at different numbers of validators. i'd expect the AWS instance to be around $100/mo
Avatar
tldr yes it is worth the 100/mo
Avatar
It looks like it will be at the current price up to like 10000 validators
Avatar
does it only start if there are 100 validators? also where does the earned HNT go?
13:48
is it locked up with the staked HNT?
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
It would be great if folks in the community figure out how to run the nodes in azure and document it for others
I’d spend some time on it. Anybody have diagrams or ideas on the AWS setup?
Avatar
Yes and earned HNT goes the the wallet that staked
Avatar
ohh ok cool
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
QUICK STRAW POLL: How do you feel about requiring 10k stake for initial validators? 😁 10k HNT is reasonable ⬇️ The value should be lower ⬆️ The value should be higher
looks like today's discussion has been mostly about whether the stake should be under 10k. but this poll suggests we should be discussing whether the stake should be above 10k.
Avatar
Avatar
BigSkyTech
I’d spend some time on it. Anybody have diagrams or ideas on the AWS setup?
it's conceptually very similar to running the miner for a DIY setup today. it will be a very very similar codebase
Avatar
Avatar
BigSkyTech
I’d spend some time on it. Anybody have diagrams or ideas on the AWS setup?
Looks like there will be a docker image???
Avatar
Got it
Avatar
I would definitely need a guide to how to set it up and to borrow some HNT 😉
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
Looks like there will be a docker image???
i'm sure we can figure out how to get one to auto-build the same way miner does today
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
i'm sure we can figure out how to get one to auto-build the same way miner does today
I would bet
Avatar
Avatar
BigSkyTech
I’d spend some time on it. Anybody have diagrams or ideas on the AWS setup?
I can help with a fail-safe terraform template if needed.
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
i'm sure we can figure out how to get one to auto-build the same way miner does today
That would probably be a good-ish way to ensure the quality/efficacy of the validators
Avatar
yea, i'd also like to see a one-click AMI on AWS for this too. im sure GCP/Azure have similar systems, i'm just less familiar with them
🫀 1
Avatar
@capcom thanks for pointing out that pinned spreadsheet. Can I share a spreadsheet with you that I also shared with @Tushar ? I'll DM you if it's ok. Would rather have you guys verify it makes sense. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
geophokus
@capcom thanks for pointing out that pinned spreadsheet. Can I share a spreadsheet with you that I also shared with @Tushar ? I'll DM you if it's ok. Would rather have you guys verify it makes sense. (edited)
if you could share it here that would be awesome, more eyes the better
Avatar
Sheet1 Regarding HIP 25,https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/master/0025-validators.md Purpose,Model Validator reward and percentage yield User can vary HNT mining rate, Validator count, staking weight, network weight, cons...
😀 2
13:54
Please have a close look and see if it makes sense. I don't know if the DC Fee should be included as I have it in the spreadsheet. (edited)
Avatar
i would expect there to be more than 1200 validators by month 2 of pos
Avatar
i like the model
13:56
definitely useful to include the halving like that
Avatar
halving and staking should have a positive effect on token price as liquidity is removed
👍 1
13:58
validators and exch rate shouldnt be flat inputs
Avatar
additional sheets could be added to include lookup tables for overstaking value functions, variable costs, variable network weight, reinvestment, forecast HNT-USD exchange rate, etc... This is enough to give you a sense of value
Avatar
thanks for putting it together @geophokus
👍 1
Avatar
Funkyanimal 02/01/2021 2:04 PM
If you don't want all the bells and whistles of AWS, GC, Azure...etc, you can save a good bit on a plain vanilla VPS with NVMe. Just do your homework.
Avatar
1200 validators would put locked supply at 17%...anyone know what other PoS staking chains % of staked tokens is?
14:10
i think Polkadot has the most staked as a % and by $ value
14:11
ETH2 has $3,927,598,358 staked
14:12
main page
Avatar
omg thats amazing. thanks!
👍 1
Avatar
I know this is still in the process but do you know when they would like to get this online?
Avatar
Avatar
Jason.G
I know this is still in the process but do you know when they would like to get this online?
I think they’re hoping for a testnet in the next couple of weeks
Avatar
nice!
14:31
I understand this will take a lot of the restraints off the network
14:31
is the t2. Xlarge recommended for this? What I mean is with validators on a x large end up getting picked more than a large?
Avatar
not at this point
14:32
we'll have firmer recommendations after some testnet, uh, testing
Avatar
all good
14:32
sorry to interrupt
Avatar
Avatar
geophokus
@Tushar , reading through the last community call doc I saw your link to Google Sheets for estimating mining rewards. I have a similar sheet with some additional variables you can modify that I can share if you'd like. Would be good to get a second set of eyes on it before posting it publically.
can you point me to Community call doc ? Thanks !!
Avatar
There is a link in the spreadsheet I shared above
Avatar
got it..
Avatar
I’m interested in staking and operating a validator node, but I’m concerned about possible issues involving German income tax. (§ 23 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 S. 4 EStG) It seems this may be more complicated than some other forms of staking. Does anybody have a handle on this?
Avatar
I don't really think that this is perhaps the place for that discussion
Avatar
Sorry if that’s inappropriate, not seeking to discuss further here in that case. OTOH it’s a very specialized issue that tax accountants with knowledge of crypto seem to have difficulty with, and here is the birthplace of the question. I’ll leave it at that.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I’m interested in staking and operating a validator node, but I’m concerned about possible issues involving German income tax. (§ 23 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 S. 4 EStG) It seems this may be more complicated than some other forms of staking. Does anybody have a handle on this?
Mods forgive me if I'm out of line for following up with this.....I would think #tax-talk on HeliumEx Discord channel would be a more appropriate place for this discussion.
Avatar
not out of line, @geophokus. thanks for providing a resource.
Avatar
Avatar
geophokus
Mods forgive me if I'm out of line for following up with this.....I would think #tax-talk on HeliumEx Discord channel would be a more appropriate place for this discussion.
Thank you for the suggestion and apologies for the disturbance!
Avatar
this channel is more about the feature rather than the tax implications in a particular region. you'll have to find another resource for things like tax advice and probably seek the help of a pro.
Avatar
Quite. Sadly the “pros” can’t even agree what it means to stake BTC. I‘ll go back to lurking and will shut up until my testnet node crashes. 😊
😹 3
Avatar
Unsolicited feedback here... 1) I would happily buy the mapper hardware from Helium especially if I could sell it back at 50% after a few months of mapping (keep my credit card on file while I have it). Make the buyback % even larger given how many square miles I map. If I map 50 square miles then buy it back at 80%; I am just making up numbers to convey my point. And of course you reserve judgement of how well the mapper hardware was cared for while in my posession and thus can lower the % as a result. I believe that would be a fair deal for all involved. 2) While I think I understand the commitment needed for a validator to be useful to the network, I think the 10k stake requirement only allows the rich to get richer. There are definitely folks that can't stake ~$25k (even though 6% APY is nice) that have the ability, desire, and commitment to be very useful validators. Please give thought to a way for such folks to become validators. Delegated PoS seems the easiest method, but requires an additional significant level of commitment of the person receiving those delegations (for instance to distribute rewards out to his or her sponsors). [Yes I am someone that wants to be a validator and can afford the staking but would prefer not to stake that much but am still committed. Helium, so far, really gives just about anyone the ability to participate and to benefit for such participation. Please keep that up.]
Avatar
((( I think you're just replying to the meeting notes. But to be clear, I don't have any ownership in that. I just found it and shared it here. Good feedback for the community though 👍 )))
💯 1
Avatar
As a reminder validators only represent 6% of total. Also more hotspots/gateways are coming online which will increase accessibility to more users to participate or existing users to invest more into coverage.
Avatar
Avatar
cyborg
As a reminder validators only represent 6% of total. Also more hotspots/gateways are coming online which will increase accessibility to more users to participate or existing users to invest more into coverage.
How does that justify becoming less inclusive in regards to validators? The only acceptable answer is that yes, validators and PoS really do require a lot more money to work correctly and thus be useful to the network. My, most likely immature, understanding is that is not actually true. If it is true, then great I completely support the direction. If not actually true, then the Poeple's Network owes it to the people to be effortful in being inclusive (from the perspective that significant commitment is the barrier to entry not wealth).
Avatar
Another important aspect is what’s meant by participation in regards to the Helium Network? Is it the ability to mine HNT, the ability to provide IoT coverage, or all of the above?
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
How does that justify becoming less inclusive in regards to validators? The only acceptable answer is that yes, validators and PoS really do require a lot more money to work correctly and thus be useful to the network. My, most likely immature, understanding is that is not actually true. If it is true, then great I completely support the direction. If not actually true, then the Poeple's Network owes it to the people to be effortful in being inclusive (from the perspective that significant commitment is the barrier to entry not wealth).
could you elaborate on the first part? why do you think PoS networks do not require large stakes?
Avatar
I think the beauty of the existing algorithm is that the system is rewarding all of the above. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
Another important aspect is what’s meant by participation in regards to the Helium Network? Is it the ability to mine HNT, the ability to provide IoT coverage, or all of the above?
The network exists to provide wireless coverage and rewards are the incentive to accomplish.
👍 1
Avatar
Proof of Stake requires large stakes to weed out the not-so-committed from the fully committed so that those with more skin in the game can be trusted in a trustless environment to make better decisions for the whole. Agree wholeheartedly. Delegated PoS allows a not-wealthy person to achieve such status by having others stake on their behalf. A lower stake amount works to be more inclusive but is a weaker approach to weed out the no-so-committed. Some of the gamers have already successfully received far more than 10k HNT but they are clearly not fully committed to the goal of the People's Netowrk; why would we want them to be validators? I don't have the answer that best blends opportunity with the need of a large enough stake, but I do think it is imperative that Helium be effortful in considering the idea of inclusivity throughout the entire network. If the answer is "we really tried but we just couldn't figure out a way", I would be satisfied.
Avatar
I understand the incentive model and that's not really where I was going with that comment. To participate in the Helium Network might mean you can run a hotspot or fleet of hotspots, or you host a hotspot, but it will also include running a validator. You don't have to run a validator to participate in the Network. However, if you wanted to you could. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Proof of Stake requires large stakes to weed out the not-so-committed from the fully committed so that those with more skin in the game can be trusted in a trustless environment to make better decisions for the whole. Agree wholeheartedly. Delegated PoS allows a not-wealthy person to achieve such status by having others stake on their behalf. A lower stake amount works to be more inclusive but is a weaker approach to weed out the no-so-committed. Some of the gamers have already successfully received far more than 10k HNT but they are clearly not fully committed to the goal of the People's Netowrk; why would we want them to be validators? I don't have the answer that best blends opportunity with the need of a large enough stake, but I do think it is imperative that Helium be effortful in considering the idea of inclusivity throughout the entire network. If the answer is "we really tried but we just couldn't figure out a way", I would be satisfied.
some thoughts in no particular order. one is that i think there's value in not solving all the problems at once - particularly on the delegation side - as it gives others an opportunity to fill-in with value add products and services. for example, there are many PoS services that make it possible for people to stake smaller amounts of tokens and not have to worry about running the server itself (staking facilities, bison trails, coinbase, etc being examples). they will almost certainly do a better job than any implementation we create, as they have an entire business focused solely on delivering that feature well. IMO we should not include delegation on-chain as it both a) adds significant complexity to the implementation, and b) closes the door (not entirely, but a lot) on those third party providers. second thought is that the business of securing the network is critical. it is less important for this to be fair, than for it to be done well, otherwise no one is going to care how fair the PoS system was when the consensus group is compromised and the chain is halted (or potentially much worse). we want validators to be running on excellent hardware with excellent network connections, and feel like they have a lot to lose if they don't continue to do this job well. lowering the barrier to entry dilutes this proposition
👍 4
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
I understand the incentive model and that's not really where I was going with that comment. To participate in the Helium Network might mean you can run a hotspot or fleet of hotspots, or you host a hotspot, but it will also include running a validator. You don't have to run a validator to participate in the Network. However, if you wanted to you could. (edited)
Are you suggesting that a possible answer to my issue, is that "there is a way for the poor to participate (just host a hotspot and reap 50% of the rewards)", "the not-wealthy to partipate (buy a hotspot or two)", "the wealthy-ish (buy a fleet of hotspots)", and now "the wealthy have a way (PoS to be a validator)". That just might be enough @Anthonyra . I will give that some thought as to if it satisfies my moral and philosophical underpinnings.
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
some thoughts in no particular order. one is that i think there's value in not solving all the problems at once - particularly on the delegation side - as it gives others an opportunity to fill-in with value add products and services. for example, there are many PoS services that make it possible for people to stake smaller amounts of tokens and not have to worry about running the server itself (staking facilities, bison trails, coinbase, etc being examples). they will almost certainly do a better job than any implementation we create, as they have an entire business focused solely on delivering that feature well. IMO we should not include delegation on-chain as it both a) adds significant complexity to the implementation, and b) closes the door (not entirely, but a lot) on those third party providers. second thought is that the business of securing the network is critical. it is less important for this to be fair, than for it to be done well, otherwise no one is going to care how fair the PoS system was when the consensus group is compromised and the chain is halted (or potentially much worse). we want validators to be running on excellent hardware with excellent network connections, and feel like they have a lot to lose if they don't continue to do this job well. lowering the barrier to entry dilutes this proposition
I do like your 'second thought'.
Avatar
and yes, lastly as others have mentioned, we are talking about a relatively small amount of the pie here. 12x (ish) of the rewards that go to the CG still go to Hotspots doing PoC work
13:33
but, in general i agree with you, as that's how we designed the system in the first place. unfortunately i don't think it is tenable
👍 1
Avatar
Thank you @capcom . I have space in my datacenter rack for a validator...just waiting for the specs.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Thank you @capcom . I have space in my datacenter rack for a validator...just waiting for the specs.
nice! hopefully we can get a testnet up and running here pretty soon
🙏 3
Avatar
Realistic timing until prod implementation? 2 months? Sooner? Just trying to determine time to earn remaining required earnings.
👍 1
Avatar
trying to launch the testnet ASAP
🙏 3
👍 3
💯 3
18:33
how long we run it for depends on what we learn
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
some thoughts in no particular order. one is that i think there's value in not solving all the problems at once - particularly on the delegation side - as it gives others an opportunity to fill-in with value add products and services. for example, there are many PoS services that make it possible for people to stake smaller amounts of tokens and not have to worry about running the server itself (staking facilities, bison trails, coinbase, etc being examples). they will almost certainly do a better job than any implementation we create, as they have an entire business focused solely on delivering that feature well. IMO we should not include delegation on-chain as it both a) adds significant complexity to the implementation, and b) closes the door (not entirely, but a lot) on those third party providers. second thought is that the business of securing the network is critical. it is less important for this to be fair, than for it to be done well, otherwise no one is going to care how fair the PoS system was when the consensus group is compromised and the chain is halted (or potentially much worse). we want validators to be running on excellent hardware with excellent network connections, and feel like they have a lot to lose if they don't continue to do this job well. lowering the barrier to entry dilutes this proposition
I believe this is going to be my new email signature. "it is less important for this to be fair, than for it to be done well" It will replace the "A decision to take no action, is in itself an action taken".
Avatar
Avatar
Eddie E.
I believe this is going to be my new email signature. "it is less important for this to be fair, than for it to be done well" It will replace the "A decision to take no action, is in itself an action taken".
😂 I’m honored?
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
😂 I’m honored?
Not sure if I would be...nobody reads my emails.
😂 2
05:19
🙂
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/03/2021 7:01 AM
@rawrmaan What is the super slick SOL staking / validator site?
Avatar
Avatar
pharkmillups
@rawrmaan What is the super slick SOL staking / validator site?
Explore the Solana blockchain: statistics, validators, token metrics and news about the overall ecosystem
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/03/2021 7:02 AM
Ahh. There it is.
07:02
@boisebrewer Some potential inspiration ^^
👍 1
Avatar
this site is cool. does something like this exist for any other pos chains. jc
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/03/2021 8:14 AM
This one is a bit of a catch-all.
08:14
Research Platform for Proof of Stake assets, Staking Providers, Trusted Blockchain Data, Intelligent Reward Calculator, Journals & Ecosystem Reports - Explore now!
08:14
But I suspect we'll see some enterprising developer crank out something for HNT.
Avatar
You know what's another sick staking site that educated new comers really well? https://launchpad.ethereum.org/
Become a validator and help secure Eth2.
Avatar
yea, huge fan of this
11:03
i think @hashc0de was looking at getting something like this going for helium too
Avatar
shh... secrets.
11:03
(not really. yeah we want something like it)
👍 1
11:04
i may get chokeholded if i leak info like that though
💯 1
Avatar
we keep secrets here 🙂
Avatar
he lies, none of us have even met him in person
🤣 5
Avatar
It is true. I'm just a really good GPT-3 implementation.
🦾 1
😹 1
😆 1
😂 1
👍 1
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/03/2021 11:17 AM
rofl
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
It is true. I'm just a really good GPT-3 implementation.
Damn passing the Turing test AND mining. What a gigachad
Avatar
my chin is that impressive.
Avatar
looking at that solana beach site - seems solana has a mainnet beta where you stake actual SOL tokens and just do not get paid any rewards / there is no slashing - and at some point they will just flip a switch and all validators will be earning. from my understanding this is different than what has been proposed here, which is a testnet with funny money tokens. im assuming there are potential downsides to a mainnet beta approach (eg, something might blow up)?
Avatar
isnt @anatoly on here somewhere? 🙂
Avatar
only reason i ask is, there seem to be some clear efficiencies with the mainnet beta approach - im seeing a lot of funds and mining pools in the validator list. im assuming they are more likely to participate in something like this vs a testnet. and you receive the benefit of many more validators in your testing environment. and everyone receives the benefit of validators accumulating hnt earlier than with the testnet approach. just a thought
Avatar
@Raf They also have a testnet called TdS (Tour de Sol) which has been around much longer than Mainnet Beta
12:44
They are only using the Beta tag on mainnet because they want to reduce peoples' expectations of stability for the first year or so
12:45
Helium's mainnet has already launched. It's important that we do some testing before we replace the mainnet validators that already exist (hotspots) with cloud-hosted versions.
Avatar
ic, that makes more sense
13:08
thx @rawrmaan
Avatar
Avatar
suprnrdy
You know what's another sick staking site that educated new comers really well? https://launchpad.ethereum.org/
😍
🔥 1
Avatar
Avatar
louis
😍
Freyja - Accuser of Iomedae 02/03/2021 4:03 PM
I have some bETH; kinda regret a lil teensy bit haha
16:03
but it's cool 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
louis
😍
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/03/2021 6:59 PM
I believe this is how ICON works as well...and a few others I can't recall. Are you suggesting helium validators should use this? 🙂
19:01
basically the idea being as less supply is locked up ("staked") the higher the rewards, incentivizing more people to stake. And the inverse when the network is overstaked and illiquid. Simple, self-regulating, elegant. 😎 👍
Avatar
Although in this case we have a fixed reward slice, how would it work?
🤔 1
Avatar
Add more from the HST pool jkjkjk
jabba 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/03/2021 8:06 PM
perhaps keep it simple then...you can have the election remain random among all staked validators, but then the 6% is awarded each election cycle weighted proportionally to how much one elected member from the group has staked vs the others? so for one round of consensus you would take every validator that was elected [randomly], add up the sum total they have staked, and then determine what % of the 6% slice they would get for that particular group of elected validators by using Reward = This Validator Stake / Total Stake of Current Round Participants (edited)
20:07
or stated another way keep validator election random where each validator's reward in any given election cycle (epoch) is Reward = (Your Stake / Epoch Pool Stake) * 6% (edited)
20:09
also (I think) incentivizes you to not necessarily overstake in one validator because while it might get you a large chunk of one election cycle it's not promised you'll be the largest in every cycle you're in, let alone your odds to be elected at all in the first place, so you'd want to at a certain point spread that stake across multiple validators to increase your election odds despite getting lower odds for high reward each individual time. (edited)
Avatar
It would be simplest to understand a proposal for overstaking if it comes with a model.
20:18
Impossible to evaluate one solution vs another if we don’t have real numbers to go with it.
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
perhaps keep it simple then...you can have the election remain random among all staked validators, but then the 6% is awarded each election cycle weighted proportionally to how much one elected member from the group has staked vs the others? so for one round of consensus you would take every validator that was elected [randomly], add up the sum total they have staked, and then determine what % of the 6% slice they would get for that particular group of elected validators by using Reward = This Validator Stake / Total Stake of Current Round Participants (edited)
Actually kinda interesting. So the overstake would only benefit you in the context of the specific consensus group you’re in, rather than the entire pool of validators? (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Why reward overstaking. Hurts the average guy that wants to be involved (edited)
Avatar
Encourages more HNT to be staked which increases the security of the network (ie. It’s harder/more expensive for a bad actor to dominate the consensus group)
Avatar
Can the extra benefit be logarithmic? So there's some benefit but not linear?
20:57
Just trying to figure out how we keep this accessible and worthwhile to the little guy
Avatar
I like that idea too. To be clear, the current proposal is no overstaking. But I like Chris’s idea. And if the overstake reward was log-like that’s interesting too
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Encourages more HNT to be staked which increases the security of the network (ie. It’s harder/more expensive for a bad actor to dominate the consensus group)
only if overstaking increases your chance of being elected, if not, then a bad actor would just stake minimum per validator as overstaking doesn't increase his chances of getting into CG
Avatar
Avatar
para2
only if overstaking increases your chance of being elected, if not, then a bad actor would just stake minimum per validator as overstaking doesn't increase his chances of getting into CG
Yea you’re right. Was thinking that too as I said it
👍 1
Avatar
I think perhaps there's more interests in staking then realized. Seems like you could cut off overstaking at a certain number of validators
21:05
When it becomes statistically very unlikely for a bad actor to gain control
21:10
Just hoping it doesn't turn into a "rich get richer" model that's all
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
atrayn22
I think perhaps there's more interests in staking then realized. Seems like you could cut off overstaking at a certain number of validators
this^
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
i think there is like 500 or more wallets with 10k or more
And 9.6 million sat in Binance than come come back quickly https://explorer.helium.com/accounts/14YeKFGXE23yAdACj6hu5NWEcYzzKxptYbm5jHgzw9A1P1UQfMv
An account on the Helium blockchain with 9,614,970.51 HNT, with the address 14YeKFGXE23yAdACj6hu5NWEcYzzKxptYbm5jHgzw9A1P1UQfMv
Avatar
Avatar
Lymph
this^
Especially when we know a large percentage of those very large wallets were gaming. Let's not reward them extra a second time.
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Actually kinda interesting. So the overstake would only benefit you in the context of the specific consensus group you’re in, rather than the entire pool of validators? (edited)
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/04/2021 8:08 AM
Yes
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
perhaps keep it simple then...you can have the election remain random among all staked validators, but then the 6% is awarded each election cycle weighted proportionally to how much one elected member from the group has staked vs the others? so for one round of consensus you would take every validator that was elected [randomly], add up the sum total they have staked, and then determine what % of the 6% slice they would get for that particular group of elected validators by using Reward = This Validator Stake / Total Stake of Current Round Participants (edited)
Other than being a different way to look at overstaking, I believe this would lead to the same net gain of overstaking as if your weight % of getting elected into CG were based on an overstake and then everyone gets their piece when in CG. While you're only getting the extra amount when you are in the cg group in your scenario, and there could be others in the cg group with overstake as well decreasing that overstake bonus, you have to look at it on average, sometimes with other overstakers, sometimes without, and on average each time you're in the cg, the distribution of others in the cg would be distribution of all validators.
Avatar
Hi all. We're going to do a video on validators and hip 25 later today. please let me know if you have any questions that we haven't covered by 1pm PST. Reply to this so I will be sure to see it. Thanks!
🔥 3
🎥 2
PogU 2
whiskey 2
10:24
have a look at the FAQ if you haven't, let us know what needs additional detail
Avatar
Avatar
evan
Hi all. We're going to do a video on validators and hip 25 later today. please let me know if you have any questions that we haven't covered by 1pm PST. Reply to this so I will be sure to see it. Thanks!
I have a questions sorry I am a newbie but very interested in learning more about becoming a Validator. So based of this being 6% of HNT distributed would it be safe to say that equates to roughly 300,000 HNT (monthly) that would go to the folks that are part of this grouping initially a 100 folks so roughly 3000 HNT if evenly distributed? Would it be equally distributed or is this something that will become a race on whose validators have the most computing power behind it? There is also mention of no cap for validators so this number would grow and the individual distrubution would go down but be offset by the rise in HNT's price? (edited)
Avatar
we'll be sure to cover that
11:08
there's no race, it's random
Avatar
The 10000 HNT does this have to be in anyway solely HNT one has mined or can it be a mixture of that and purchased HNT? I am assume it doesn't matter but want to ask ?
11:09
How does one become a part of the first 100 what is needed to be part of that list of folks ?
Avatar
I can't tell the difference between two different HNT without doing a whole chain analysis
Avatar
haha figured as much
Avatar
it'll go roughly like this: we start up a testnet in a week or three
👍 1
11:10
people can try it out without anything other than server
11:10
at some point during that period, we'll merge the code and people can start staking
11:11
when we have 100+ validators staked, we'll do a manual process to kick off the migration
heliumgreen 2
send 1
Avatar
how much assistance will be provided in the configuration again a newbie miners is one thing this sound like it requires a bit more in configuring etc
Avatar
there will be some documentation, but we expect that a lot of less expert people will stake via an infrastructure company
Avatar
Also can it be explained what the significance and purpose of the 10000 HNT is when one is providing that in this process. Is it just to control the number of folks participating
11:13
an infrastructure company ?
Avatar
there are companies that will run your validator for you for other chains, and we expect that they'll offer our validators as well
Avatar
oh ok any names or folks that can be shared now or during the call ? (edited)
Avatar
I don't have that information, but people who're on the video will, we can cover it then (edited)
Avatar
thanks appreciate it looking forward to it will this video be on Helium YT channel streaming live or uploaded later?
Avatar
no one has expressed interest in running these but folks in the space include bison trails, all nodes, stake fish, staking facilities, etc. sometimes exchanges and wallet companies offer this as well like binance, kraken, huobi, etc.
💯 2
Avatar
Is it still the case that setting one up on AWS will be comparable to setting up a DIY?
Avatar
we continue to believe so, yes.
11:30
with some more steps 🙂
Avatar
Luckily I’m wearing my steppin boots
11:36
Also depending on time/money/technical issues I’ll be offering it as a service on a limited scale 🦾
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
no one has expressed interest in running these but folks in the space include bison trails, all nodes, stake fish, staking facilities, etc. sometimes exchanges and wallet companies offer this as well like binance, kraken, huobi, etc.
Thanks
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
Also depending on time/money/technical issues I’ll be offering it as a service on a limited scale 🦾
Might have to take you up on that
Avatar
Avatar
carpaydm
Might have to take you up on that
I’ll know more once I’m up on the testnet/send up a birdcall when open for business
🐦 1
Avatar
Sounds good
Avatar
Avatar
carpaydm
thanks appreciate it looking forward to it will this video be on Helium YT channel streaming live or uploaded later?
pharkmillups 02/04/2021 12:58 PM
Uploaded after it's done.
Avatar
sorry nvm (edited)
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/04/2021 2:08 PM
Video recorded.
14:09
It’ll be out later this week.
whiskey 2
Avatar
Avatar
pharkmillups
Video recorded.
Great where can I find it helium YT page ??
Avatar
Avatar
pharkmillups
Uploaded after it's done.
You guys are a team of cyborgs I tell you...
Avatar
Avatar
suprnrdy
You guys are a team of cyborgs I tell you...
pharkmillups 02/04/2021 2:52 PM
Yes. We’ll also post it here.
Avatar
great! @pharkmillups
Avatar
Avatar
carpaydm
Great where can I find it helium YT page ??
jas_williams 02/04/2021 3:38 PM
https://youtube.com/c/HeliumInc the helium YouTube page but not uploaded yet (edited)
Powered by the Helium Blockchain, The People’s Network represents a paradigm shift for decentralized wireless infrastructure. Helium was founded in 2013 by Shawn Fanning of Napster, Amir Haleem, and Sean Carey. The company is backed by Khosla Ventures, GV (formerly Google Ventures), FirstMark Capital, Marc Benioff, HSB/MunichRe Ventures, Union ...
👍 1
🙌 1
Avatar
lol love the attention 🙂
🌟 2
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 02/04/2021 5:14 PM
mAkE SuRe tO SmAsH ThAt lIkE BuTtOn aNd hIt tHe nOtIfIcAtIoN BeLl Troll
😂 3
Avatar
oh no @pharkmillups we forgot
17:19
how will we ever get those subs
peoplemag 1
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/04/2021 6:05 PM
Whoops.
Avatar
middle age man 02/05/2021 6:41 AM
If I had gotten my new miners in December i would be half way to 10k,
Avatar
FooFighterBear 02/05/2021 11:01 AM
I’d like to suggest Helium create the same thing that Kusama did with their “Thousand Validators”. This allows people who aren’t $$$$ to apply for a nomination with a much smaller amount of invested money. If approved they are group backed with the minimum staking amount as long as they maintain a reliable Validator. Without something like this for Helium it will severely limit who get’s to Validate. Likely will concentrate the Validators which I assume it the opposite of what should happen to maintain a safe network. The last thing you want is a few people but more like companies owning all the Validators because everyone else is priced out.
Avatar
that's an interesting idea
Avatar
Avatar
evan
that's an interesting idea
FooFighterBear 02/05/2021 11:07 AM
It makes a lot of sense from a security perspective and from a let’s not be all about enriching Big BIZ and the 1% while excluding the community that actually built the network. It also protects the network because the small Validators if they are not stable get kicked out of the program and do invest 50 KSM which is about $6k USD. It might not be $50K but it’s just the same incentive for someone who would qualify and who isn’t rolling in money to be good and not have their money slashed.
Avatar
Avatar
FooFighterBear
I’d like to suggest Helium create the same thing that Kusama did with their “Thousand Validators”. This allows people who aren’t $$$$ to apply for a nomination with a much smaller amount of invested money. If approved they are group backed with the minimum staking amount as long as they maintain a reliable Validator. Without something like this for Helium it will severely limit who get’s to Validate. Likely will concentrate the Validators which I assume it the opposite of what should happen to maintain a safe network. The last thing you want is a few people but more like companies owning all the Validators because everyone else is priced out.
maybe i am misunderstanding that part, but couldn't a group of people form together and do the same thing?
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
maybe i am misunderstanding that part, but couldn't a group of people form together and do the same thing?
FooFighterBear 02/05/2021 11:13 AM
You have to be staked as a Validator with the minimum amount to be elected to Validate and earn money for both the Validator and the Nominators who also stake money. Nominator’s require a much lower minimum amount then the Validator to stake and be selected by a Validator. The Validator can only select so many Nominators so they will pick ones that stake the most money. Yes you could create a company that a group of people join to get to the minimum amount for a Validator to stake to be nominated.
Avatar
i think the motivation is good, allow those who may not have the full stake amount to stake, but there are off-chain solutions that i think are better suited, staking facilities for example
Avatar
who approves the nominations or how does that work in the kusama system?
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
maybe i am misunderstanding that part, but couldn't a group of people form together and do the same thing?
FooFighterBear 02/05/2021 11:15 AM
What this means is a Validator will have to stake let’s say $60k total. That is what they stake and what the nominators they select stake. This total of both has to reach that minimum amount. The Nominator will prob have to stake in the $300range to even be considered by a Validator.
Avatar
oh, i see what you mean
11:16
ye have to agree with @para2 there that doing this on-chain feels like the wrong place to put it
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
who approves the nominations or how does that work in the kusama system?
FooFighterBear 02/05/2021 11:17 AM
The Nominators can select multiple Validators that they are willing to stake. The Validator selects out of the Nominators that will stake them based on the amount they have staked. The Validator is more likely to select Nominators that stake the most money.
Avatar
I do think that some sort of splitting proxy account would facilitate this sort of thing
11:18
but that way lies smart contracts
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I do think that some sort of splitting proxy account would facilitate this sort of thing
maybe hip24 will enable partial/split staking. min is still the full stake amount, but multiple wallets can pool together. but still feels like chain bloat to me
Avatar
I'm not a fan of 24 as I currently understand it, but I'd prefer as much of this stuff be off-chain as possible as a general stance
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
ye have to agree with @para2 there that doing this on-chain feels like the wrong place to put it
FooFighterBear 02/05/2021 11:20 AM
If you joined an off chain solution like @para2 mentioned then they will just be taking a % of your commission earned. It would be a lot easier then managing your own Validator and keep it in good standing but your trading your earnings for someone else managing the Validator.
Avatar
so helium engineering needs to take the hit and chain-bloat++ so that partial staking gets full %? i'd vote no, but that's just me
Avatar
Avatar
FooFighterBear
If you joined an off chain solution like @para2 mentioned then they will just be taking a % of your commission earned. It would be a lot easier then managing your own Validator and keep it in good standing but your trading your earnings for someone else managing the Validator.
the trade though is on-chain complexity/maintenance and engineering time
💯 1
Avatar
I personally want to see 2000+ validators before the end of the year
11:24
if we stall out before then, or see signs that there is a lot of concentration, we can think about what the right thing to do is to expand access
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
the trade though is on-chain complexity/maintenance and engineering time
FooFighterBear 02/05/2021 11:29 AM
I’m not sure what you are saying. I’m just saying if a computer engineer wants to run a Validator on a cloud service but didn’t have $60k to invest give them a venue to basically get a scholarship to allow their Validator to be selected. Look at Kusama but it’s a very smart solution. It allows people to start Validating on Kusama and then once they’ve earned enough money to move onto the Polkadot network Validating. Think of it like an internship that the network benefits from. Oh and if you are on the internship you can only charge Nominators up to 10% commission. So when you ask what incentive will a Validator have to not charge 100% commission meaning their Nominators earn nothing to stake them. It’s the fact there will be Validators that can’t charge more then 10% creating competition.
Avatar
there is essentially no chance that something like this will end up in the first version, though
👍 1
11:30
so it's probably best to take to #hip-discussion
Avatar
Avatar
FooFighterBear
I’m not sure what you are saying. I’m just saying if a computer engineer wants to run a Validator on a cloud service but didn’t have $60k to invest give them a venue to basically get a scholarship to allow their Validator to be selected. Look at Kusama but it’s a very smart solution. It allows people to start Validating on Kusama and then once they’ve earned enough money to move onto the Polkadot network Validating. Think of it like an internship that the network benefits from. Oh and if you are on the internship you can only charge Nominators up to 10% commission. So when you ask what incentive will a Validator have to not charge 100% commission meaning their Nominators earn nothing to stake them. It’s the fact there will be Validators that can’t charge more then 10% creating competition.
I’m driving now but the point I was trying to make is that it makes the implementation more complicated and takes more time to build to add this functionality. I like the idea as a concept
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
evan
there is essentially no chance that something like this will end up in the first version, though
FooFighterBear 02/05/2021 11:35 AM
People should be concerned about Validator’s charging 100% commission because the same business also owns the Nominator that is staking them. This means no individuals who are trying to Nominate will ever be selected unless they are staking $$$$. This really limits the market when the entry point for even a Nominator goes into the thousands of dollars to stake.
Avatar
I’m guessing this is unrelated to Yayoi Kusama . . .
Avatar
@FooFighterBear I'm sorry you've drifted off into your own jargon, could you rephrase?
👍 1
11:37
you've neglected to link any of this kusama business, either
👍 1
11:38
what is a nominator? what commssion?
Avatar
Avatar
FooFighterBear
People should be concerned about Validator’s charging 100% commission because the same business also owns the Nominator that is staking them. This means no individuals who are trying to Nominate will ever be selected unless they are staking $$$$. This really limits the market when the entry point for even a Nominator goes into the thousands of dollars to stake.
I would say that there is near 100% consensus from the helium team and community that some type of delegated stake system is desired and will be created. There are very pragmatic reasons for a version 0.1 system that is simple and solid to get deployed sooner then layer. The stability and security of the network depends on it. HIP25 describes the feature set of this first version. In no way does this HIP exclude major changes and enhancements to happen after this is deployed.
👆 2
👍 2
Avatar
FooFighterBear 02/05/2021 11:41 AM
Web3 Foundation has created a Thousand Validators Programme for Polkadot. Apply and follow the validator setup instructions, and you could be eligible to receive nominations from Web3 Foundation to help kickstart your Polkadot node.
👍 1
Avatar
I've been reading for a couple of hours on this starting from the first post. I didn't get all the way through. Please forgive me if this has been fleshed out, but I'd like to know if there's been more discussion on limiting validators to only those with hotspot miners as proposed in tracking #111. Seems like tying in this unique attribute the Helium network has with POS can mitigate some of the centralization/security problems faced by many other blockchains. I don't have any proposal on what all of the qualifying factors with the hotspot ownership would be, but I think this is a logical thing to explore. (edited)
👍 2
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/06/2021 5:25 AM
@Cryptonite hi there. It’s been discussed a lot here and on the community calls, but the current plan is to not limit validators to running hotspots.
Avatar
I'm a bit dense...but all the talk about gaming the validator setup..I can't for the life of me, figure out how that would work. There is no POC's and even if you have 40 validators in your basement, it doesn't game the system...it does give a SPOF for the 40 though..so if the internet goes down you lose 40 validators.
Avatar
It boils down to a majority vote really. The specific damage of one entity holding all that power I'm honestly not that versed in but in theory if 2/3 of the validators that are producing blocks are controlled by one entity they could force the rest to agree on what a block should be and not what it actually is (it'd be difficult). I'm thinking maybe an easy way to game without really breaking much is lets say they wanted to drop 25% of all PoC receipts at the same ensuring all of theirs were accepted...This would lower the overall PoC receipts for that block increasing the rewards their hotspots made. (edited)
Avatar
so there are cryptographic commitments!
09:16
if you try to, post-consensus, filter txns you don't like, not only will no one else sign it, there's proof that you signed it
09:17
and we can slash you for it if we want to
Avatar
Will slashing be built in? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Cryptonite
I've been reading for a couple of hours on this starting from the first post. I didn't get all the way through. Please forgive me if this has been fleshed out, but I'd like to know if there's been more discussion on limiting validators to only those with hotspot miners as proposed in tracking #111. Seems like tying in this unique attribute the Helium network has with POS can mitigate some of the centralization/security problems faced by many other blockchains. I don't have any proposal on what all of the qualifying factors with the hotspot ownership would be, but I think this is a logical thing to explore. (edited)
this seems very low reward for a lot of work. it could easily be counterproductive
Avatar
Avatar
geophokus
Will slashing be built in? (edited)
no, but I encourage everyone to cheat the hell out of things during the testnet period
💯 1
09:23
if we find some good cheating, we might make some slashing happen
09:24
otherwise I'm not sure what we would do it for
Avatar
Got it. I was looking at the rich list and see that several million HNT are held in single wallets. I didn't do a full count but maybe less that a few hundred currently have >10k. I think the two biggest must be exchanges and then there appear to be many backers in the top that are receiving Security Tokens
09:25
Lends support to the idea of scaling Stake value >10k and that pre-pools there really aren't a ton of qualified individuals
Avatar
Avatar
geophokus
Got it. I was looking at the rich list and see that several million HNT are held in single wallets. I didn't do a full count but maybe less that a few hundred currently have >10k. I think the two biggest must be exchanges and then there appear to be many backers in the top that are receiving Security Tokens
looks like 500+ have over 10k. bear in mind the top 2 wallets on the list are exchanges, so it's hard to get an accurate accounting
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
looks like 500+ have over 10k. bear in mind the top 2 wallets on the list are exchanges, so it's hard to get an accurate accounting
Got thanks for the updated count. I wonder if exchanges can decide to lock some of that for staking or if they have to stay completely liquid.
Avatar
Avatar
evan
if you try to, post-consensus, filter txns you don't like, not only will no one else sign it, there's proof that you signed it
I'm suggesting if there's a way for that group to drop those receipts? How does the group know?
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
I'm suggesting if there's a way for that group to drop those receipts? How does the group know?
the only way would be for the majority of the nodes to collude. HBBFT is a multiparty computation protocol, so many validators have to decrypt transactions before they are accepted. remember they are encrypted when they arrive at the group
Avatar
I'm on the same page with you. My suggestion was that if the majority was owned by the same party they could essentially drop 25% of the receipts (kinda like if there was a NAT/network failure between challengee/witness to CG) this would result in the overall count of those receipts in that block to be lower than it actually was.
Avatar
you would need to own 2/3+1
Avatar
If 2/3 are saying that there was 100 PoC receipts (filtered) and the other 1/3 see's 125.. how would that play out?
Avatar
and there would be evidence to the ones that don't collide that it happened
09:47
the bigger group can make blocks, but it has to control the group in perpetuity to avoid being punished
09:47
the minority can show that their transactions are being filtered
Avatar
Yea but isn't the purpose to trust the majority?
09:48
I guess there could be an overall % accuracy of the CG
Avatar
you have to, yes
09:49
but there are limits to what it can do
Avatar
Even though the block would be signed for that 100/125 the group would be a pretty bad % accuracy.. would it start kicking?
09:51
Is there a repo yet for the validator bits?
Avatar
it's all the same code as before
09:54
there will just be more of them
Avatar
This is a really good discussion. Might be a good idea to try actually making a validator with 2/3+1 ownership to attempt control
Avatar
I've landed protobuf branches and the blockchain-core branch
10:02
but the miner branch so far is just a mess of config changes
Avatar
Like intentionally create it before having a 10k rule
Avatar
@geophokus the stake will be lower for the testnet, and I'll just hand it out
👍 1
Avatar
Give yourself a million tHNT and go to town trying to break it
Avatar
I'll always be able to outspend, but something like that
10:13
maybe we can make a game of it somehow
Avatar
i missed the call the other day but did someone say it would be uploaded to YouTube?
Avatar
it was private
10:22
yes, it'll go up on youtube, I think on thursday?
10:22
you get to see me freeze up when mark asks me to talk about myself
😸 1
10:22
great fun
10:22
hopefully they edited the panic in my eyes out in post
Avatar
perfect thanks. Ha, any of us in the corporate world have been there done that, hahaha.
10:23
I have an AWS EC2 up and running with full node, but this will be something built separately, right?
Avatar
it'll be roughly the same
10:23
new chain, though
10:23
and same ports
10:24
we could run it on a different port so people could leverage existing machines
Avatar
It accesses the blockchain locally on that node?
10:24
(the validator)
Avatar
the validator will be a full node
10:25
same codebase
Avatar
yep, got it
Avatar
but the testnet will have a separate genesis block
10:25
we can run it on different ports so people can reuse full nodes and ETL setups for testnet work
👍 1
Avatar
I’m sure I missed it ... as we go with the validators model for the consensus group ... any ideas on how far that would scale? 16 active per epoch out of 100+ in the pool? Would there be any value in regionalized local?
Avatar
I'm not sure yet how to guarantee locality
10:57
that's probably a ways out
10:57
we'd like to get the pool of validators into the thousands and the size of the consensus group into three figures
Avatar
Avatar
evan
we'd like to get the pool of validators into the thousands and the size of the consensus group into three figures
Thx! As the size of the consensus group grows, doesn’t the traffic between them go exponential? 3 figure consensus groups could eat more than 1Gbps ... so you’ll need even bigger servers and pipes. Would there be a way to “shard” and merge back in the next epoch?
Avatar
it'll be all new! exciting times
11:04
but yes, it will be more expensive in terms of bandwidth
11:05
there's lots of low-hanging fruit in terms of making everything smaller, so I think that we'll be able to scale it up quite a ways without issues
Avatar
I see 30-day and 7day avg block time is now 60 sec. Is that still part of the motivation for HIP 25 or is that problem solved now? I know one thing mentioned is the upscaling of gossip that will continue.
Avatar
I understand a lot of the code is being re-used just was hoping from a learning experience to watch it grow.. maybe even provide some backup if I see something or just somewhere I can look to not ask dumb questions haha
Avatar
These are the blockchain changes needed for the validators features. So far, this has elections, and adds validators to the ledger, and does some basic testing. Todo: most txns, staking, snapshot...
partyparrot 4
12:21
no miner branch yet
12:21
maybe Monday
Avatar
Avatar
geophokus
I see 30-day and 7day avg block time is now 60 sec. Is that still part of the motivation for HIP 25 or is that problem solved now? I know one thing mentioned is the upscaling of gossip that will continue.
it took a lot of work to get there, and we have no idea how much longer it'll hold
👍 1
12:23
2x hotspots? 3x?
12:23
gossip will continue to worse, as mentioned
Avatar
Avatar
evan
it took a lot of work to get there, and we have no idea how much longer it'll hold
Well done making it happen for the meantime. 25 will be a fun development and improvement
Avatar
Avatar
evan
the validator will be a full node
Very good to know! So no snapshots for validators potentially?
Avatar
@evan I'm fairly technical but have never dealt with cloud platforms and have never run a staking validator. I do, however, have 10K HNT to stake and am very interested in running a validator. Is it even feasible to create a step-by-step process for those like myself to get involved? I understand professional staking services may one day be available, but I prefer to be an early bird on things when possible
Avatar
Avatar
Cryptonite
@evan I'm fairly technical but have never dealt with cloud platforms and have never run a staking validator. I do, however, have 10K HNT to stake and am very interested in running a validator. Is it even feasible to create a step-by-step process for those like myself to get involved? I understand professional staking services may one day be available, but I prefer to be an early bird on things when possible
We will definitely write a guide on how to do this
👍 4
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
We will definitely write a guide on how to do this
Awesome! Will that guide be available before the mainnet goes live?
Avatar
The intentions of the HIP were to improve performance and stability of the blocks, (I just read the whole thread start to now), I didn’t see any metrics to be collected to ensure it is solving the challenges before us. (Availability, latency, jitter, processing speed ...).
Avatar
Avatar
Cryptonite
Awesome! Will that guide be available before the mainnet goes live?
Yup. Worst case I’ll write it myself!
❤️ 3
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Yup. Worst case I’ll write it myself!
You just made my day!
13:28
One last question... Can anyone with 10K HNT and willing to participate on day 1 be able to? Or is there a limited number in the beginning?
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Yup. Worst case I’ll write it myself!
liddle framkie 02/06/2021 1:30 PM
when
Avatar
Avatar
olb1ue
Very good to know! So no snapshots for validators potentially?
I don't know, really.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
SK
The intentions of the HIP were to improve performance and stability of the blocks, (I just read the whole thread start to now), I didn’t see any metrics to be collected to ensure it is solving the challenges before us. (Availability, latency, jitter, processing speed ...).
I'll try to put something like this together next week
13:41
the success metric section of the hip is very handwavy
😂 1
Avatar
Avatar
evan
the success metric section of the hip is very handwavy
Everyone just assumes perfect implementation just happens after the plan is locked in. 😂
Avatar
I mean, I wrote it
13:44
I'm not assuming much
13:44
we were running the chain on this kind of hardware before mainnet
13:45
we know we can go bigger, we just don't know by how much
13:46
we have goals in mind, we just don't know how reasonable they are
13:47
the handwaving is just standard unwillingness to commit to hard numbers too early in the process
13:48
(I'm also implementing the changes and have been involved for a long while)
Avatar
Avatar
evan
(I'm also implementing the changes and have been involved for a long while)
liddle framkie 02/06/2021 1:50 PM
Expert
Avatar
Well thanks for being so open and willing to answer questions while you probably have a ton on your plate!
Avatar
so the only currently known way to game the validator is to buy 66% +1? Pretty good as its like the immortals in the original Highlander film. There can be only one.
Avatar
Avatar
Eddie E.
so the only currently known way to game the validator is to buy 66% +1? Pretty good as its like the immortals in the original Highlander film. There can be only one.
Yea, this is part of the point of having larger sized stakes in these schemes. It becomes very expensive to try and you put a lot of capital at risk if you sabotage the network. Even more so once there are slashing conditions as well
Avatar
hey guys .. has this proposal been approved by the community.. if not, whats the roadmap.. if yes, how does one run a validator..thanks
Avatar
Avatar
MmmmYah
hey guys .. has this proposal been approved by the community.. if not, whats the roadmap.. if yes, how does one run a validator..thanks
Helium Improvement Proposals. Contribute to helium/HIP development by creating an account on GitHub.
Avatar
Avatar
MmmmYah
hey guys .. has this proposal been approved by the community.. if not, whats the roadmap.. if yes, how does one run a validator..thanks
it has. testnet is coming soon.
passed 1
Avatar
can anyone recommend anything as soon as the testnet gets setup?
21:25
or rather anything to prep for it?
Avatar
get the miner software checked out and running on the server you want to use
21:44
there are some docs but I never can find them
21:48
Miner for the helium blockchain. Contribute to helium/miner development by creating an account on GitHub.
21:48
note that you'll also need a recent Rust and a C and C++ tool chain
21:52
there are better docs that the Google links to seem to have rotted. someone else will know before too long
👍 1
Avatar
freshleysqueeched 02/07/2021 12:30 AM
Definitely will spin up a validator soon 👍🏻 any ETA on the testnet?
👍 1
Avatar
I’ve always run a server or three but have no experience with crypto, eager to join the testnet to get a feeling for things. How should one be thinking about security, what level of attacks should one expect on a validator node? Are these hardened standard libraries facing the internet? It seems reasonable to run a testnet server on a shared machine as @evan suggests, but would that be appropriate for mainnet?
Avatar
These instructions and erlang version are based on raspbian and erlang 21.3.3. I'm assuming since validators will be on more robust servers the suggested build will be with something more like debian or ubuntu and a more recent erlang like 23.2.3?
Avatar
Avatar
freshleysqueeched
Definitely will spin up a validator soon 👍🏻 any ETA on the testnet?
More comms on this coming soon.
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
These instructions and erlang version are based on raspbian and erlang 21.3.3. I'm assuming since validators will be on more robust servers the suggested build will be with something more like debian or ubuntu and a more recent erlang like 23.2.3?
we have been lax about upgrading versions, I'll try to get OTP23 support merged soon. latest 22 for now
Avatar
I think I wrote that guide back when it was actually possible to build and run it on raspbian
Avatar
Yeah needs some updates. It says 21 but actually gives instructions for 22.
07:34
Hadn’t noticed that until this moment
Avatar
I'm guessing this is a bit early, but with possible future static IP requirements and DNS resolvable URLs for validators I was wondering how one would go about validator maintenance or IP transfers for location transfers. If I wanted to bring a validator down to apply security patches or upgrades, or wanted to physically move a server from one location to another, would it be possible to simply spin up a mirrored validator with the same key and swap the IP that the DNS resolvable URL points to in order to have essentially 0 down time? Just want to be sure that even there is a requirement for a static IP, that the IP address could be changed on occasion without risk of loss or slashing if it's ever implemented.
Avatar
Avatar
evan
get the miner software checked out and running on the server you want to use
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/07/2021 7:55 AM
is it literally going to be the same software or any differences worth pointing out? From what I gather it is essentially running a headless cloud miner (no associated gateway)
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
I'm guessing this is a bit early, but with possible future static IP requirements and DNS resolvable URLs for validators I was wondering how one would go about validator maintenance or IP transfers for location transfers. If I wanted to bring a validator down to apply security patches or upgrades, or wanted to physically move a server from one location to another, would it be possible to simply spin up a mirrored validator with the same key and swap the IP that the DNS resolvable URL points to in order to have essentially 0 down time? Just want to be sure that even there is a requirement for a static IP, that the IP address could be changed on occasion without risk of loss or slashing if it's ever implemented.
haven't put any thought into it. running two nodes simultaneously with the same key can cause all sorts of problems (and there's also the issue of moving the block data around). update and restart should be good enough? we'll have to be careful with any slashing that we design to not be too nasty, I don't want to disincentivize keeping up to date
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
is it literally going to be the same software or any differences worth pointing out? From what I gather it is essentially running a headless cloud miner (no associated gateway)
yes
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
evan
haven't put any thought into it. running two nodes simultaneously with the same key can cause all sorts of problems (and there's also the issue of moving the block data around). update and restart should be good enough? we'll have to be careful with any slashing that we design to not be too nasty, I don't want to disincentivize keeping up to date
While I would assume an update and restart are probably fine, at some point there's always some update that breaks something and can take a little while to get back online, and when the stake could be a $50k equivalent very soon here, it's a lot to risk losing those rewards by simply being offline without even any slashing. And the other aspect too, is if say I have a server co-located at a local facility and want to move it to another, or it's at our company building and we move offices, etc - I'd want to be sure I can more or less instantly switch validator IPs to an alternate running validator without the same significant possible downtime issues.
Avatar
to avoid this complication you could transfer the stake between two nodes
08:16
I'm still tinkering with the liveness design, but I could add a command to disable the liveness updates and then you would not be at risk while you moved (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
perhaps keep it simple then...you can have the election remain random among all staked validators, but then the 6% is awarded each election cycle weighted proportionally to how much one elected member from the group has staked vs the others? so for one round of consensus you would take every validator that was elected [randomly], add up the sum total they have staked, and then determine what % of the 6% slice they would get for that particular group of elected validators by using Reward = This Validator Stake / Total Stake of Current Round Participants (edited)
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/07/2021 8:16 AM
@evan any thoughts here
Avatar
no thoughts, but no overstake in v1 is the plan
Avatar
Avatar
evan
to avoid this complication you could transfer the stake between two nodes
Sure, the ability to transfer stake to a separately running validator would definitely solve this. Thanks.
Avatar
Deleted User 02/07/2021 9:49 AM
Are you alluding to a double signature?
Avatar
So can I just stake 10k HNT to my diy cloud miner that is running now?
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
Are you alluding to a double signature?
huh?
Avatar
friends just call me bob 02/07/2021 1:07 PM
As i was reading on the github The question remaining is - if the system switches to validators how will the current hotspot miners be of any value after that system takes over? and how will those current hotspot owners be kept motivated specially on top of halving after august?
Avatar
Avatar
Eddie E.
So can I just stake 10k HNT to my diy cloud miner that is running now?
validators will have all the poc machinery disabled
Avatar
Avatar
friends just call me bob
As i was reading on the github The question remaining is - if the system switches to validators how will the current hotspot miners be of any value after that system takes over? and how will those current hotspot owners be kept motivated specially on top of halving after august?
they will still be gateways, they get 94% of the rewards
Avatar
Is the software already available?
Avatar
Avatar
friends just call me bob
As i was reading on the github The question remaining is - if the system switches to validators how will the current hotspot miners be of any value after that system takes over? and how will those current hotspot owners be kept motivated specially on top of halving after august?
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/07/2021 1:18 PM
Hotspots are currently "multipurpose" or "all-inclusive" devices; they involve both the LoRa concentrator / packet forwarder combination and the miner software (miner can be technically in the cloud, but I digress). With the adoption of HIP 25 / Validators the network will shift to decoupling the sending/receiving of RF signal ("gateways" -- LoRa concentrator / packet forwarder) from the miner aspect, which participates in consensus. The latter will become "validators". The former will be "light gateways" (https://github.com/helium/gateway-rs). So the current hotspots will just transfer data and the validators will receive the data and form consensus around block building. It's just separating two different jobs so their can be optimized independently. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
Hotspots are currently "multipurpose" or "all-inclusive" devices; they involve both the LoRa concentrator / packet forwarder combination and the miner software (miner can be technically in the cloud, but I digress). With the adoption of HIP 25 / Validators the network will shift to decoupling the sending/receiving of RF signal ("gateways" -- LoRa concentrator / packet forwarder) from the miner aspect, which participates in consensus. The latter will become "validators". The former will be "light gateways" (https://github.com/helium/gateway-rs). So the current hotspots will just transfer data and the validators will receive the data and form consensus around block building. It's just separating two different jobs so their can be optimized independently. (edited)
friends just call me bob 02/07/2021 1:29 PM
Makes sense. So the lite version does not need a trust module or security chip the current miners have, thus bringing the overall pricepoint of the “lite” gateways down a fair bit, is that somewhat correct?
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/07/2021 1:30 PM
I'm not sure on the specifics of light gateways. I think it'll work slightly differently.
Avatar
I'm not sure about the trust stuff (edited)
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/07/2021 1:31 PM
but yes the pricepoint issue is correct
Avatar
but they won't need as strong a CPU or as much memory to run the light gateway code
13:31
which will help bring the price down
13:32
while this work is enabling for light gateways, questions about the specifics are probably better directed to #gateway-development
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
evan
huh?
Deleted User 02/07/2021 3:13 PM
I was asking @qwick745 if he was inferring to double signing
15:15
Double signing occurs when a validating entity submits two signed messages for the same block i.e. having a backup entity running at the same time - typically to prevent downtime.
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
I was asking @qwick745 if he was inferring to double signing
Yes, this is sort of what I was asking - how I could switch nodes without downtime or slashing. I know double signing can lead to slashing in some PoS, but wanted to figure out if it would here if I spun up another node with the same key, or if I could have a new one sync first without a key at all while the first one still holds the key, then add the key to the new node and take the first node offline at the same time. So if just having a new key on the second node and transferring the stake from the original to second one is the way to do it, that solves it for me.
Avatar
Deleted User 02/07/2021 3:22 PM
The reason why it's slashed in other chains is because it just adds an unnecessary hurdle to reaching consensus. We shouldn't be re-inventing PoS but rather borrowing on the best known existing features. Your problem herein can be solved by having your validator in the cloud.
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
The reason why it's slashed in other chains is because it just adds an unnecessary hurdle to reaching consensus. We shouldn't be re-inventing PoS but rather borrowing on the best known existing features. Your problem herein can be solved by having your validator in the cloud.
Yea, like a few others here I'm a hardware guy, already have running servers that can easily handle this with a fiber line, so definitely not wanting to spend an extra ~$1k/yr when I can spin up a VM on existing hardware for free.
Avatar
Deleted User 02/07/2021 3:26 PM
Fair point.
Avatar
But definitely agree we should borrow on others PoS existing features to help avoid things like double signing.
15:28
I'm sure things like that will come with time as we add slashing
Avatar
Deleted User 02/07/2021 3:30 PM
I don't think slashing is a good thing for Helium. Instead of slashing in the traditional sense, I'd rather see the "opportunity cost" be burnt into DCs. Like, hey, if you made it into CG you'd have earned x amount of HNT as rewards. But since you missed out, that said x amount of HNT is now burnt.
Avatar
I mean that's what happens
16:11
you don't get rewards if you don't get in
16:11
you don't get in if you're not up
👍 1
16:12
we could change the adjustment penalty to include rewards removal if you weren't up for most of a group
16:12
that's a form of slashing, I suppose
Avatar
freshleysqueeched 02/08/2021 1:29 AM
Any able to get the miner to build on Debian x86_64? Was getting this error : cc /home/bradsquicciarini/miner/_build/default/lib/erlang_ale/c_src/gpio_port.o /home/bradsquicciarini/miner/_build/default/lib/erlang_ale/c_src/i2c_port.o /home/bradsquicciarini/miner/_build/default/lib/erlang_ale/c_src/ale_main.o /home/bradsquicciarini/miner/_build/default/lib/erlang_ale/c_src/spi_port.o /home/bradsquicciarini/miner/_build/default/lib/erlang_ale/c_src/erlcmd.o -L /usr/lib/erlang/lib/erl_interface-4.0.2/lib -lerl_interface -lei -o /home/bradsquicciarini/miner/_build/default/lib/erlang_ale/c_src/../priv/erlang-ale /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lerl_interface collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status make[1]: *** [Makefile:46: /home/bradsquicciarini/miner/_build/default/lib/erlang_ale/c_src/../priv/erlang-ale] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/bradsquicciarini/miner/_build/default/lib/erlang_ale/c_src' ===> Hook for compile failed! trying to compile
Avatar
move back an erlang version
06:34
you're running otp23
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 6:41 AM
Has there been any discussion of pegging the stake minimum to DC equivalent of 10K HNT? seems like this would preclude wild price fluctuations significantly impacting the barrier to entry.
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
Has there been any discussion of pegging the stake minimum to DC equivalent of 10K HNT? seems like this would preclude wild price fluctuations significantly impacting the barrier to entry.
DC to HNT isn’t static. There was talk of a DC burn to operate validators. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
DC to HNT isn’t static. There was talk of a DC burn to operate validators. (edited)
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 6:49 AM
No but DC to USD is.
06:50
I should have said the DC equivalent of the USD equivalent of 10k HNT 😂
😹 1
👍 1
Avatar
I just did the math on that and yeeeeeeesh
😆 1
06:52
06:53
There was some discussion here back
06:54
Definitely don’t hate the idea of using DC, but it doesn’t really work for staking as it can’t be transferred
Avatar
so I thought about it a bit, and while we could scale the HNT threshold via the oracle price, it makes slashing and overstake substantially more complicated down the road
Avatar
Yeah, and what happens to validators that staked at higher levels when the price drops? Does that get returned / overstake? And how about the opposite, when the staking requirement goes up, you'll have understaked validators. Seems very complicated...
Avatar
exactly
Avatar
I’m team simplicity for sure
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 02/08/2021 7:18 AM
Im team Bertie (edited)
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 7:29 AM
"we choose to go to the moon... Not because it is easy .. But because it is hard"
07:29
😆
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
Yeah, and what happens to validators that staked at higher levels when the price drops? Does that get returned / overstake? And how about the opposite, when the staking requirement goes up, you'll have understaked validators. Seems very complicated...
I agree the simplest method is a static level, like 10k HNT, but as others have mentioned, that amount in USD has more than doubled since this HIP was opened and it could be a huge investment to run a validator if HNT continues to rise. I do have a concern that this makes it far more difficult for anyone to run a validator and we could hurt the total number of validators with a large entry hurdle (of course the return doesn't change, so exchanges etc could pool $, but I still think it would hurt our numbers). While I do think it's very complicated and I'm with @Bertie that KISS is best, here are 2 thoughts on ways to complicatedly tie it to oracle price as @evan mentioned . 1. A stake split - have some threshold or timing (once a year, or at each halvening) that if the HNT price has more than 2x changed, then there's an equivalent split in stake and you could either opt to run that new number of nodes with multiple stakes (transfer stake I think if we still have one node limit), pull out your excess stake (cool down still?), or keep it all on one node and overstake (requires overstake to be setup of course). And as @PaulM mentioned, the exact opposite would be true for a 1/2x or more drop - would require some sort of oracle based lookahead some amount of time beforehand, and people would need to increase stake to continue to earn, and if they didn't, they could still participate as a node so we don't crash the network, but without earnings until they trued up? 2. A more dynamic option is to do something similar with a continuous tie in to oracle price, and as oracle went up, the excess stake would just be considered an overstake; but if oracle went down would it be an "understake" with a similar type of diminishing returns to encourage someone to get back to the full stake level but stay in the group with an understake, but of course to not let anyone add a new node understaked. (edited)
💜 1
💯 1
Avatar
@qwick745 can you edit in some line breaks?
Avatar
sorry...
Avatar
no problem it's just a lot to take in without formatting (edited)
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 7:31 AM
@PaulM presumably a peg would work in both directions... Price increase and decrease. Also if you have understake you can always request supplemental stake (think liquidations/margins, kind of).
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
I agree the simplest method is a static level, like 10k HNT, but as others have mentioned, that amount in USD has more than doubled since this HIP was opened and it could be a huge investment to run a validator if HNT continues to rise. I do have a concern that this makes it far more difficult for anyone to run a validator and we could hurt the total number of validators with a large entry hurdle (of course the return doesn't change, so exchanges etc could pool $, but I still think it would hurt our numbers). While I do think it's very complicated and I'm with @Bertie that KISS is best, here are 2 thoughts on ways to complicatedly tie it to oracle price as @evan mentioned . 1. A stake split - have some threshold or timing (once a year, or at each halvening) that if the HNT price has more than 2x changed, then there's an equivalent split in stake and you could either opt to run that new number of nodes with multiple stakes (transfer stake I think if we still have one node limit), pull out your excess stake (cool down still?), or keep it all on one node and overstake (requires overstake to be setup of course). And as @PaulM mentioned, the exact opposite would be true for a 1/2x or more drop - would require some sort of oracle based lookahead some amount of time beforehand, and people would need to increase stake to continue to earn, and if they didn't, they could still participate as a node so we don't crash the network, but without earnings until they trued up? 2. A more dynamic option is to do something similar with a continuous tie in to oracle price, and as oracle went up, the excess stake would just be considered an overstake; but if oracle went down would it be an "understake" with a similar type of diminishing returns to encourage someone to get back to the full stake level but stay in the group with an understake, but of course to not let anyone add a new node understaked. (edited)
Devils advocate question - should the stake be higher as the network increases in value?
💯 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 7:33 AM
These aren't final ideas my point is we should be just as willing to fill holes as we are to poke them in spitballing. We should do what is most effective not simply what's easiest/simplest. Though I'm 100% for elegance. 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Devils advocate question - should the stake be higher as the network increases in value?
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 7:33 AM
I saw you post this before and almost alluded to it. I think stake peg can address both concerns
Avatar
I don’t know what a stake peg is
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 7:34 AM
You can always set the stake min via chainvar then change it
07:34
Sorry, alluding to a bit above
07:34
Pegging the min stake to a fixed fiat equivalent
07:34
Eg DC
Avatar
Like yea, the cost to stake has doubled, but so have the mining rewards, and so should the cost of security (IMO)
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Devils advocate question - should the stake be higher as the network increases in value?
Fair point - but what if it comes at the cost of fewer validators?
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
Fair point - but what if it comes at the cost of fewer validators?
I don’t think the entry fee matters versus the rewards
Avatar
straight % return wise it shouldn't matter, but barrier to some amount of capital if you're in the 6 plus digits could be real
Avatar
In either case validators will come until there is no longer ROI
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
straight % return wise it shouldn't matter, but barrier to some amount of capital if you're in the 6 plus digits could be real
Yea that’s true, I suppose I come at this from a purely security focused lens. It’s not meant to be UBI or fair. What is the most secure solution?
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 7:40 AM
I really think the argument that a higher stake means more security is kinda misleading. for a well capitalized actor whether it's $1000 or $100000 equivalent it really is moot. For a less capitalized actor 1000 vs 10000 can be all the difference. Allowing the barrier to entry to fluctuate with price movements is functionally regressive
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Yea that’s true, I suppose I come at this from a purely security focused lens. It’s not meant to be UBI or fair. What is the most secure solution?
Counterpoint: I like to get lots of money for investing very little
Avatar
i never said a higher stake meant more security. i just asked what the most secure solution was
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 7:41 AM
no but it seemed implied by "a higher value should mean a higher cost"
Avatar
that is IMO the most important metric
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 7:41 AM
in any case just objectively floating that cost is not a proxy for security IMO. I could be wrong. 🤷‍♂️
Avatar
the total cost of the staked pool is absolutely one of the proxies. it's the barrier that an attacker has to overcome
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 7:42 AM
it is insofar as the cost to act poorly outweighs the cost of acting "well"
07:43
but it isn't like, idk, that simple I guess? I'm not trying to say it has no relation whatsoever. Just that it's not by any means the only factor. again. shrug. I just was already hesitant on the access level before there was a huge pump of volatility
Avatar
Well I think part of my thought process of being secure is while having a large amount of stake tied up I do believe helps make it secure, I also think numbers of validator nodes running helps too. If entry price gets high enough, not only could capital be a problem for new nodes coming online, but even while the ROI should be there for the well capitalized, the risk is also magnified as the amount you have to put on the line and tie up for 5 months could mean huge losses if HNT were to tank, again leading even the wealthier HNT owners possibly being hesitant to run new nodes.
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 7:43 AM
then suddenly started realizing holy 💩 that 10k HNT just 5x'd overnight
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
but it isn't like, idk, that simple I guess? I'm not trying to say it has no relation whatsoever. Just that it's not by any means the only factor. again. shrug. I just was already hesitant on the access level before there was a huge pump of volatility
im not sure what else provides security in a proof of stake system
Avatar
And all of this I'm also saying just as a thought experiment because I agree with you @capcom that security is the most important in the end, and I too don't know the best way to do that, just spitting out thoughts here.
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 7:44 AM
well in other networks there is some connection between liquidity and reward rate
07:45
so it's a bit odd here when there is a fixed reward and a capped supply
Avatar
The price of HNT going up making the stake more valuable also makes the rewards more valuable. This incentivizes staking earlier in a way that makes a lot of sense to me
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 7:45 AM
would have been interesting to do like, a mint and burn approach where your HNT stake would be burned into DC to stake and then "frozen" or "locked", then when you un-stake you convert your staked DC back to HNT somehow
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
And all of this I'm also saying just as a thought experiment because I agree with you @capcom that security is the most important in the end, and I too don't know the best way to do that, just spitting out thoughts here.
yup understood, i actually don't know either. but everyone should be cognizant that security/reliability is what matters here. the arguments tend to wander around between "rich get richer" and "it's not fair" but as I've said before, no one is going to care about how fair it was when the network is halted
👍 1
💯 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 7:46 AM
admittedly more complex for sure (edited)
Avatar
I thought security comes from a large amount of stake in the active block producers (aka consensus group) - maximizing for the number of total eligible validators is not necessarily the same thing
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 8:00 AM
If the regressive nature of the stake minimum could be addressed that would seem sufficient a hedge 🤷‍♂️ What if you make each validator stake tied to a particular wallet and then just make the chance to be elected each round a relative function of % of wallet staked? Then you aren't determining access based on flat rate (regressive) but as a percentage of your total holdings ("flat tax" model). So higher % of wallet staked, higher chance of being elected. However, rewards split of the 6% pool could be inversely related -- lower stake (within the respective CG round) = higher reward. So your odds are lower but reward is higher.
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
yup understood, i actually don't know either. but everyone should be cognizant that security/reliability is what matters here. the arguments tend to wander around between "rich get richer" and "it's not fair" but as I've said before, no one is going to care about how fair it was when the network is halted
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 8:02 AM
I think you're overstating the counterpoint here, at least with regard to some arguments. I 100% acknowledge your points that security and reliability is important. I am trying to not take such a black and white position here. It doesn't have to be completely one or the other. I'm really just attempting to conceive of the smallest amount of added complexity that would move the needle in any way at all towards adding more access without removing security/stability.
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
If the regressive nature of the stake minimum could be addressed that would seem sufficient a hedge 🤷‍♂️ What if you make each validator stake tied to a particular wallet and then just make the chance to be elected each round a relative function of % of wallet staked? Then you aren't determining access based on flat rate (regressive) but as a percentage of your total holdings ("flat tax" model). So higher % of wallet staked, higher chance of being elected. However, rewards split of the 6% pool could be inversely related -- lower stake (within the respective CG round) = higher reward. So your odds are lower but reward is higher.
without any sybil resistance this doesn't seem like it would accomplish much?
08:03
ie. i can make an infinite amount of addresses and distribute hnt between them without anyone being able to identify me as the same individual
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 8:04 AM
let me ask a more pointed question -- without making any judgement one way or the other as far as if it's desirable or not, do you agree that a high stake disenfranchises network participants, aside from to what specific extent we can agree/disagree it does?
08:04
maybe I should start from a position of having an agreed axiom.
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
If the regressive nature of the stake minimum could be addressed that would seem sufficient a hedge 🤷‍♂️ What if you make each validator stake tied to a particular wallet and then just make the chance to be elected each round a relative function of % of wallet staked? Then you aren't determining access based on flat rate (regressive) but as a percentage of your total holdings ("flat tax" model). So higher % of wallet staked, higher chance of being elected. However, rewards split of the 6% pool could be inversely related -- lower stake (within the respective CG round) = higher reward. So your odds are lower but reward is higher.
Then someone could just sell all the HNT in their wallet and be massively overstaked
Avatar
i have no idea, i've only seen the small straw polls where everyone appears in favor of the current amount or higher
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 8:04 AM
it sounds like you agree it does but we are in disagreement about how important that is overall.
Avatar
in general i doubt many people care, as the odds of participating in consensus are slim and diminishing as it stands now anyway
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 8:05 AM
I don't want to mischaracterize your position.
Avatar
it's also not a metric i think is very important relative to security, but you know that already
👍 1
💯 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 8:06 AM
right, agreed, but I'm also not arguing that it has anything to do with security
08:06
I'm going for a mechanism that preserves security while increasing access. If it doesn't exist then oh well I tried
Avatar
all for it if such a thing exists. i'm not aware of how to do that though
👍 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 8:07 AM
I can understand it might not be as personally important to you but I'd think you could appreciate the effort to gain one without losing the other. 🧐
08:07
🙂
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
all for it if such a thing exists. i'm not aware of how to do that though
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 8:07 AM
yeah fair enough
08:07
thanks
Avatar
in the car world we have the saying that you can only pick two of fast, cheap, and reliable. it feels like a similar conundrum here
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 8:10 AM
right so if we envision that as a triangle where moving toward one moves you away from the others, I guess it sounds like I'm proposing landing in the middle of the triangle where you seem to be suggesting erring on the side leaning towards the "security" and "stability" corners
08:10
seems like a simple difference of priorities. and not even in priorities, but the degree to which you give up one to gain some of the other. though I'm 100% with you I'd prefer to give up none of one to get some of the other. maybe just not possible here.
Avatar
im still not sure what is being proposed though?
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 8:11 AM
literally just rethinking the minimum stake or creative ways to fractionalize the stake to make it more accessible to retail network participants *without compromising security or performance (edited)
08:11
I think that could be resolved with the delegation of stake proposals that have been thrown around though so maybe it's moot
08:11
via exchanges third parties etc
08:12
that is, if the min stake is 10k HNT and we can have 10 people delegate 1k HNT maybe that addresses both of our concerns at once. 🙂
Avatar
There are plenty of ways to fractionalize stake off chain that will not be prevented. as mention, stake infrastructure providers, exchanges, etc could offer. heck, you could offer that as a service to others. The question is why does that need to be on-chain? At 10K, there seems to be plenty of demand that there will be a sufficiently large pool of validators. (edited)
👍 1
💯 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 8:14 AM
I think it falls under "just because you can doesn't mean you should" (as far as 'oh it doesn't matter because there is sufficient demand' -- that was never in question) @PaulM (edited)
08:15
but again, I don't think we are in disagreement here insofar as the options to enable access off-chain. Just advocating there is a way to enable support for that, not concernd about anything explicitly disabling it
👀 1
08:18
I'm also curious, is there any further "use" that can be make of staked HNT? It seems odd that we would potentially have hundreds of thousands if not millions of HNT locked away not doing anything other than sitting there. Isn't there some opportunity for something liquidity-related? I'm at a loss for terminology here but something similar to DeFi in that the locked stake can provide lending liquidity and pay interest
08:18
or would that be supported off-chain via wrapped HNT or something
Avatar
I think the market will react accordingly if there are a ton of retail investors interested in staking amounts smaller than the minimum required. If the rewards are good, providers will come to take a slice and market staking products on HNT.
💯 1
Avatar
Deleted User 02/08/2021 9:01 AM
Seems a bit regressive to be still talking about whether 10k is the right minimum. If you look at it from a fiat perspective and it's out of reach, I hate to say this but...such is life. Like hashc0de said, the market will win in the end. A good comparison is Avalanche, would've cost $6k a few weeks ago to launch a validator but now you'd need north of $60k.
this 3
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
Seems a bit regressive to be still talking about whether 10k is the right minimum. If you look at it from a fiat perspective and it's out of reach, I hate to say this but...such is life. Like hashc0de said, the market will win in the end. A good comparison is Avalanche, would've cost $6k a few weeks ago to launch a validator but now you'd need north of $60k.
I saw Binance just launched a staking service for AVAX to fill this gap
Avatar
Deleted User 02/08/2021 9:04 AM
Exactly. The market is very innovative. It's not up to the engineers to figure out everything especially regarding the economic incentives.
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 9:06 AM
speaking on the "rewards are 6%" point -- I have to ask, because I often wonder but never have actually elevated to the point of actually confirming -- is it in theory possible to change the reward pool allocations via HIP? Seems like the argument comes up a lot without actually questioning if that is set in stone. Thanks. 👍
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
speaking on the "rewards are 6%" point -- I have to ask, because I often wonder but never have actually elevated to the point of actually confirming -- is it in theory possible to change the reward pool allocations via HIP? Seems like the argument comes up a lot without actually questioning if that is set in stone. Thanks. 👍
this is a dicey one, IMO it is better to fork than change the allocations
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
Seems a bit regressive to be still talking about whether 10k is the right minimum. If you look at it from a fiat perspective and it's out of reach, I hate to say this but...such is life. Like hashc0de said, the market will win in the end. A good comparison is Avalanche, would've cost $6k a few weeks ago to launch a validator but now you'd need north of $60k.
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 9:07 AM
"such is life" is not a valid reason. It's "because that's the status quo" and with all due respect I won't ever respond to "because I said so" as a valid reason. but moving along, just my 2c
Avatar
Agree. It’s likely that the market will treat any rewards reallocation as a rug pull. It’d be like going back to infinite supply or deciding not to remove the yearly adjustments.
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
this is a dicey one, IMO it is better to fork than change the allocations
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 9:08 AM
yeah I'm also not advocating just clarifying if it's actually even technically possible.
09:09
wouldn't a fork be more harmful overall to the network than a consensus reallocation...?
09:09
look at BCH
09:09
or BSV
09:09
anyway though I'm getting off topic. sorry
Avatar
that's not harmful. that's how crypto is supposed to work. governance by fork is IMO a great thing
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 9:09 AM
"harmful" in terms of conflict within the community I guess is what I'm alluding to
Avatar
arguably no more harmful than a group of the community that disagrees with the current path
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 9:10 AM
if you fragment the community as opposed to keeping it unified. politics stuff lol
Avatar
Conflict happens in the community. But if an initiative causes a fork and sufficient people go to the other side, then it’s considered successful.
09:10
The longest chain should win.
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 9:11 AM
yeah...I mean I hear you it just feels off thinking it's a good thing for the population of the network (and therefore any use of it) to be halved (roughly speaking)
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
yeah...I mean I hear you it just feels off thinking it's a good thing for the population of the network (and therefore any use of it) to be halved (roughly speaking)
well my assumption is that half of the population is already disgruntled, so keeping them trapped inside the community is also harmful
👍 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 9:11 AM
in any case not something that is near to happening by any means lol so probably a pipe dream convo
09:12
thx for the answer re: the split reallocation though
09:12
had been churning around in my head for awhile coming to the surface once in a blue moon. 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
well my assumption is that half of the population is already disgruntled, so keeping them trapped inside the community is also harmful
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 9:13 AM
oh man dont get me started there, I have similar thoughts on the current state of affairs in world politics. lol /digress
Avatar
I run a validator node for a DPoS chain with a fixed number of validators.(51). Binance currently operates 1 validator node and provides staking rewards for customers on their platform. Binance has enough coins to hold more than 1 validator node so initially there was concern about exchanges controlling too many nodes. Binance seems to operating relatively virtuously by only running the single node.
09:14
I could absolutely imagine Binance operating Helium validators
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 9:17 AM
@pj validators don't exist yet there are no validators operational as of present
09:17
unless you're referring to the other DPoS chain you mentioned
Avatar
I am just illustrating my experience of Binance running validators for other chains.
👍 1
Avatar
bisontrails which is now coinbase, I guess, said they limit the number of validators nodes they run
09:19
I forget what their threshold is (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
Fair point - but what if it comes at the cost of fewer validators?
there is no data anywhere in crypto to suggest that as the requirements to stake get higher, that fewer people stake. In fact, if you look at any proof of stake network out there you will see the opposite. As a given network becomes more valuable, more people stake. Look at all the recent proof of stake chains like Polkadot, Solana, Avalanche, and others to see this data (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
I really think the argument that a higher stake means more security is kinda misleading. for a well capitalized actor whether it's $1000 or $100000 equivalent it really is moot. For a less capitalized actor 1000 vs 10000 can be all the difference. Allowing the barrier to entry to fluctuate with price movements is functionally regressive
higher stake definitely means higher security. that is how proof of stake systems work. the more at stake, the more secure the system
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
higher stake definitely means higher security. that is how proof of stake systems work. the more at stake, the more secure the system
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 9:35 AM
you misread my critique -- I never claimed it wasn't related I said it was overstated that an arbitrarily higher stake would make a dramatic difference in security (talking in the ranges being discussed, e.g. 5K vs 10K)
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
there is no data anywhere in crypto to suggest that as the requirements to stake get higher, that fewer people stake. In fact, if you look at any proof of stake network out there you will see the opposite. As a given network becomes more valuable, more people stake. Look at all the recent proof of stake chains like Polkadot, Solana, Avalanche, and others to see this data (edited)
That's great to hear, I've never personally looked for that data so I appreciate the insight. If you have anything talking about things like that and how increase in stake amount increases the number I'd love to take a look to educate myself a bit more as I'll completely admit to being new to PoS as I've ever only done PoW before. That being said - I'm sure there must be SOME limit to stake being too much to be detrimental, like if we said a 1 million HNT stake, I imagine that would make it not work, so I would assume there is some sort of peak or upper limit I'm just clueless as to where that would be.
Avatar
@qwick745 the key thing to understand here is that staking pools solve this problem
09:39
staking pools allow smaller players to pool their stake so they can run a validator too
09:39
similar to PoW pools
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
@qwick745 the key thing to understand here is that staking pools solve this problem
Sure. I guess just as long as it's low enough that we have can enough nodes online to have a secure running network (i.e. a 1 million HNT stake would limit us to a couple of nodes...).
Avatar
yes agreed, 1M stake requirement is too high
09:43
10k seems reasonable to me though. many people think it might be too low if the straw poll Arman ran is accurate (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
10k seems reasonable to me though. many people think it might be too low if the straw poll Arman ran is accurate (edited)
I mean I'm on board with 10k myself as a flat simple number. I guess just from a network stability and security issue, it almost seems like it really should somehow be based on some percent of HNT in circulation, but I don't want to go there either...
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
10k seems reasonable to me though. many people think it might be too low if the straw poll Arman ran is accurate (edited)
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 9:45 AM
I can't wait until some voting mechanism is implemented because it's getting real old calling an informal straw poll of like 20-30 dudes in a discord server on a network of 18k nodes and growing "consensus".
09:45
caveated with the acknowledgement that "it is what it is" in the meantime
09:46
seems to being glossed over that there is a high degree of economic/financial bias in that group, granted it likely comes from a correlation of financially well off individuals who are biased against the 10K figure as "a lot" relative to personal wealth and having the free time / awareness to be here in the first place. (edited)
Avatar
Deleted User 02/08/2021 9:49 AM
I'm by no means a wealthy individual. I happened to get in early and now I can spin off a dozen+ validators. That I think is with a lot of the early adopters across crypto.
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 9:50 AM
Also it would go a long way for any of the individuals making that "it's not about being fair" argument to simply acknowledge the disenfranchisement as existing rather than trying to invalidate it by making a contrasting argument. I think a lot of the tension is wound up in simple lack of acknowledgement that it's a real issue worth consideration.
09:51
also FWIW 10K HNT will likely be perfectly attainable for me personally based on @Deleted User's point above. And the fact that I'm operating a mining business. But I still as a matter of principle will always advocate for the little guy. I need to get off this point though I keep feeling compelled to respond to the bumps everyone makes coming in with their 2 cents. 😬 🙃
Avatar
Deleted User 02/08/2021 9:52 AM
You really don't have to be party to every conversation 🤷‍♀️
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 9:53 AM
That's why I just called myself out: "I need to get off this point though I keep feeling compelled to respond"
Avatar
Is there an initial idea on the ideal # of validators for optimum performance?
Avatar
Avatar
E R I K
Is there an initial idea on the ideal # of validators for optimum performance?
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 9:54 AM
the more the better
Avatar
Deleted User 02/08/2021 9:54 AM
100+ (edited)
Avatar
For some perspective, we are talking about 6% of the reward pool. That's a small tax for security. 10x of that (60% of rewards) go to the little guys - the hotspot operators. That barrier to entry is much smaller. (edited)
👍 8
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
Also it would go a long way for any of the individuals making that "it's not about being fair" argument to simply acknowledge the disenfranchisement as existing rather than trying to invalidate it by making a contrasting argument. I think a lot of the tension is wound up in simple lack of acknowledgement that it's a real issue worth consideration.
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 9:56 AM
@PaulM
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
Also it would go a long way for any of the individuals making that "it's not about being fair" argument to simply acknowledge the disenfranchisement as existing rather than trying to invalidate it by making a contrasting argument. I think a lot of the tension is wound up in simple lack of acknowledgement that it's a real issue worth consideration.
i mean, it is definitely not fair. i dont think anyone is pretending otherwise? it's not supposed to be, that's not the goal of building a secure system
09:58
the most fair system is the one we have, but it does not scale as we've seen. it was optimistic at best
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 9:59 AM
thanks @capcom
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
I'm by no means a wealthy individual. I happened to get in early and now I can spin off a dozen+ validators. That I think is with a lot of the early adopters across crypto.
I’m in a similar place, I work in the nonprofit sector and all of the resources I can put into Helium are Helium derived
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
@PaulM
Dude, I get it. I literally wrote HIP16 which advocated for more fair distribution of CG rewards. However, as pointed out by others, it is not scalable and requires more to be at stake (no pun intended) to insure the security of the network.
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 10:10 AM
what's the math behind 10k?
10:12
I'm really just trying to understand where that figure was derived from as far as it relates to the argument that that specific number constitutes "secure". If it's arbitrary then I rest my case.
10:13
It seems to merit reiteration that I am totally in agreement some sufficient stake is required to secure the network. I just haven't heard a reasoned argument to any given specific number.
Avatar
it was arbitrary, it remains arbitrary, but there have been no convincing arguments on either side
10:14
including the "go smaller" side
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 10:14 AM
ok thanks, fair point then
Avatar
We need a 69,420HNT stake to get papa Elon's attention.
👀 1
😹 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 10:15 AM
and for what it's worth, my critique equally applies to "why not raise it", frankly. If there is no reason behind it and we are taking as axiom "more cost = more secure", and the access issue is resolved by pooling/delegating, then why not raise it and only have whales validate
Avatar
Avatar
Joey
We need a 69,420HNT stake to get papa Elon's attention.
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 10:15 AM
yes this
Avatar
I would love to develop some sort of framework for reasoning about this but I don't have time right now
Avatar
Why are there 21M Bitcoin and not 22M?
Avatar
I'm sure there will be some work on it during the testnet period
Avatar
i think we'll get plenty of validators at 10,000, if hundreds is the goal.
Avatar
Avatar
Joey
We need a 69,420HNT stake to get papa Elon's attention.
This is much less arbitrary and has sound reasoning. I vote for
💯 2
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 10:17 AM
I think you all are not fully appreciating how important reasoned arguments are to me, personally. It really has little to do with the particular subject. We can back and forth on the magic number all day. lol
Avatar
Avatar
louis
This is much less arbitrary and has sound reasoning. I vote for
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 10:17 AM
has more reason than 10k so f it lets do it
10:18
(kidding)
Avatar
I can't wait until we start talking about how overstake works...this conversation will look like a relative walk in the park
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
has more reason than 10k so f it lets do it
Nobody has denied its arbitrary. But it was a first arbitrary setting and there’s little reason for a different number
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
I think you all are not fully appreciating how important reasoned arguments are to me, personally. It really has little to do with the particular subject. We can back and forth on the magic number all day. lol
Please start offering reasoned arguments. You've posted gifs in a HIP - I'm triggered. (edited)
😂 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 10:20 AM
I just think it's hilarious that people will get all the way up to the point of admitting it's arbitrary then when questioned "okay well shouldn't it be not arbitrary...?" just default back to previous unjustified vaguery.
Avatar
we're operating on prior art here
10:22
where as you're operating on vague gestures towards including the small guy
10:22
these are about even, to me?
10:22
I'd love to have some more coherent way to evaluate it
Avatar
Avatar
Joey
Please start offering reasoned arguments. You've posted gifs in a HIP - I'm triggered. (edited)
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 10:24 AM
HIP has been approved, per unofficial standard HIP is in gif phase https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/781207816026325002/789665094103334933
10:24
again, internet, text, joking, disclaimer
Avatar
Deleted User 02/08/2021 10:25 AM
Please stop.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
evan
where as you're operating on vague gestures towards including the small guy
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 10:27 AM
not really vague gestures I literally drafted a whole HIP involving discussing delegated stake, which has been alluded to here many times and continues to be discussed. I've even so much as put out a PR modifying that HIP to tailor to the discussion around staking/overstaking/delegating to decouple the conversation around what has been approved (HIP 25 in the de facto standard as you allueded to -- "prior art"), and conversation around specifics of how said topics will work.
10:29
Modified the content and title a bit to pivot this proposal to an extension of HIP 25 : Validators. This HIP will involve discussion around validator staking, overstaking, and slashing, as well as ...
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
not really vague gestures I literally drafted a whole HIP involving discussing delegated stake, which has been alluded to here many times and continues to be discussed. I've even so much as put out a PR modifying that HIP to tailor to the discussion around staking/overstaking/delegating to decouple the conversation around what has been approved (HIP 25 in the de facto standard as you allueded to -- "prior art"), and conversation around specifics of how said topics will work.
this seems irrelevant to the discussion of the magnitude the threshold stake?
10:35
it's a fine discussion to have and I appreciate your contribution, but it does not help us talk about a) what the number is b) what it should be, and c) why (edited)
10:36
I have tried to guide the discussion to this, so again: what does a particular stake level get us? what would we lose by going lower, or higher? are there any numbers associated so we can model this?
10:37
someone said they were putting together a list of other PoS chains with their various staking levels and requirements so we can compare
10:37
if that doesn't happen I'll do it myself once the testnet is up
Avatar
Avatar
evan
this seems irrelevant to the discussion of the magnitude the threshold stake?
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 10:38 AM
Not really it's directly related to staking.
10:39
the magnitude is what would in theory tie together hip 25 and hip 23
10:39
well, not directly. just that you can't "finish" 25 without a number
10:40
it kinda feels like one can't resolve without the other resolving. We can't talk about how much the stake is before we talk about how the broader staking process works in particular.
10:41
I guess my other question is what is the perceived or real threat of lowering the stake? Not "makes the network less secure" but in concrete terms how does it materially affect the security? to entertain the alternative argument there for a sec (edited)
Avatar
many projects have 50-80% of the token supplies staked. At 50% for helium that would be about 3600 validators at 10k. (assuming no overstaking and 72.6m HNT in circulation today). Pre halvening my quick calc is ~ 10% annual yield from this scenario. (assuming i did it correctly). you can see some examples here, hopefully the website is accurate. https://www.stakingrewards.com/staking
👍 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 10:51 AM
@E R I K the issue with these comparisons is many of them don't have the same reward pool dynamics as helium (as I understand it) (edited)
10:53
I think there are some different dynamics e.g. how the % of circulating supply staked effects your rewards and/or how long your stake/unstake period is
10:53
more power to you though if we can figure out how to use those similar dynamics in this context
10:55
I was mulling over some idea around basing the election probability and/or reward paid on a similar metric (i.e. based on either the total supply staked or the % of a particular validator wallet balance staked), but it gets complicated pretty quick.
10:58
In my HIP draft I was thinking on making the stake more of a per-epoch entry fee than a refundable deposit. So each opted in gateway (wallet) could opt-in to a per-epoch stake entry which would be delegated to your chosen validator pool (exposed thru UX via the app) and then rewards would be a function of how much was staked for that epoch. stake would be debited from the respective wallet each epoch (essentially the opposite of mining rewards in a sense). (edited)
10:59
the reason I was doing this is it also incentivizes the validators to be honest actors because if they want better rewards they have to aggregate delegate stake which means they have to be beholden to delegators
11:02
and then over/understake is also addressed conveniently because you just make a flat validator registration stake (use the 10k figure here) and then any stake above and beyond that comes from delegated stakes. Then you make the rewards each epoch (each CG group cycle) proportionate to the chosen validators delegate stake (for a given validator take their total delegated stake portion divided by sum of all current group's delegated stake for the % of the 6% reward pool they receive). As you can see that creates an incentive for validators to aggregate more delegates to receive a larger portion of the rewards.
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
I think there are some different dynamics e.g. how the % of circulating supply staked effects your rewards and/or how long your stake/unstake period is
i think the "yield" is useful as many will use this to compare, they may choose to buy and stake helium vs. something else if the yield looks good even if it ignores other aspects of one token vs. another.
👍 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 11:04 AM
also bubble that down to the delegate rewards. validator takes their cut (can let them decide this if you want to give a metric for the market to compete on) then divide the rest between how many delegates contributed stake for the respective epoch
Avatar
Avatar
E R I K
i think the "yield" is useful as many will use this to compare, they may choose to buy and stake helium vs. something else if the yield looks good even if it ignores other aspects of one token vs. another.
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 11:04 AM
you're referring to yield farmers?
Avatar
I've tried a couple ways to get to the optimal staking number numerically. One way was to back into based on the target number of validators we want in the pool. Combined with assumptions around ROI and operating costs, you can calculated the stake amount. stake_amount = (total_CG_rewards / target_number_of_validators - annual_operating_cost) / return_percentage
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
I've tried a couple ways to get to the optimal staking number numerically. One way was to back into based on the target number of validators we want in the pool. Combined with assumptions around ROI and operating costs, you can calculated the stake amount. stake_amount = (total_CG_rewards / target_number_of_validators - annual_operating_cost) / return_percentage
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 11:09 AM
this sounds like a good starting point, I would only clarify on the point that I have been seeing that is, generally speaking the more validators the better
11:09
would you say that's generally correct
Avatar
For example, assuming a target of 1000 validators, 300 HNT / year operating costs and 10% return percentage, you get that the stake amount should be 33,000 HNT
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
you're referring to yield farmers?
not necessarily, I know people who have invested in a project just b/c they like the staking return aspect of it.
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
this sounds like a good starting point, I would only clarify on the point that I have been seeing that is, generally speaking the more validators the better
There is probably diminishing returns but maybe it can be used to think of as a minimum number which would yield a maximum stake amount
Avatar
the more the better generally, but we expect there to be some dynamic equilibrium of HNT price vs. validator running price vs. number of validators
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
There is probably diminishing returns but maybe it can be used to think of as a minimum number which would yield a maximum stake amount
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 11:11 AM
right but the diminishing returns aspect probably sorts itself out via market forces if set up correctly.
11:11
i.e. at the point where earnings are not profitable relative to costs (edited)
Avatar
For example, if the CG group size is 100, maybe a minimum is 10x that 🤷‍♂️
11:12
I meant diminishing return on security of the system by having more validators. I honestly don't know if 10,000 validators are more secure than 1,000 if the amount of HNT locked up is the same
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
For example, if the CG group size is 100, maybe a minimum is 10x that 🤷‍♂️
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 11:12 AM
so basically you are saying determine what the acceptable ROI is and work back from that
11:12
correct?
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
I meant diminishing return on security of the system by having more validators. I honestly don't know if 10,000 validators are more secure than 1,000 if the amount of HNT locked up is the same
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 11:13 AM
it seems it would based on the fact that you have a more diverse pool of actors
11:13
to me "secure" is essentially describing how difficult it is to collude with others -- no?
Avatar
if it was only that easy to determine, but yeah, essentially, if you can more easily come up with reasonable assumptions for the variables, that may help get to an answer
👍 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 11:14 AM
any way to use "play money" in the testnet? maybe field data is just the way to go
11:14
throw some test data into a simulation or field trial
Avatar
there will be testnet specific tokens
👍 1
Avatar
Play money will not yield real world data
Avatar
I've been hoping to setup some game-y aspects, but I haven't had a lot of time to think about it
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
Play money will not yield real world data
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 11:15 AM
you mean because of cognitive bias (different risk appetite etc because no "real" risk)? (edited)
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 11:16 AM
valid point, but it seems still better than hypothetical abstract data lol
Avatar
you can buy test hnt from me for usd
11:19
not saying you have to, but you can if you think it would make things realer (edited)
😂 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 11:20 AM
also kind of not related to stake but speaking of test net, and eventual 1.0 release....is there any way to "phase in" validators, so that at first there is a mix of gateways and 'real' validators in CG? in case there are any unforeseen attack vectors etc there is a backout plan or hedge of sorts? (edited)
11:20
or is that even a concern to begin with
Avatar
it's all the same mechanisms, so not a big concern
👍 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 11:24 AM
tbh I am just anxious for some rubber to meet the road so we can stop debating hypotheticals and see the real results and iterate on them. probably inventing a lot of problems that don't actually exist in the interim.
11:25
godspeed helium team
Avatar
yeah, and remember, we can adjust it when we need to. lowering the threshold and adding partial unstake are pretty easy
👍 1
Avatar
Hoping I can get to 10k tokens in the next 4-6 weeks. Will becoming a validator be as simple as setting up a hotspot, or will this require more technical know-how?
Avatar
Avatar
Hashem
Hoping I can get to 10k tokens in the next 4-6 weeks. Will becoming a validator be as simple as setting up a hotspot, or will this require more technical know-how?
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 12:02 PM
if you did DIY then you can manage a validator. Definitely more know-how than a hotspot though (edited)
12:03
and if you didn't, based on discussion to date it's likely there will be a facilitation of third party services to offer retail stake delegation, for the less technically inclined.
👍 1
Avatar
SimpliceJeff 02/08/2021 12:05 PM
there would be no limitation on the number of validators?
Avatar
Avatar
SimpliceJeff
there would be no limitation on the number of validators?
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 12:07 PM
I think it's TBD
12:09
it still seems kind of an unknown what the actual margins here might be (as far as cost of operation and returns) so hard to determine what an upper cap might be. Seems to me logical that you'd want as much validator diversity (in terms of ownership) as possible, but as always I'm open to being corrected.
Avatar
no plans for one at this point
12:09
there is a FAQ section in the HIP now
🙌 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 12:09 PM
ugh thanks for that evan I was just wondering if one existed. 🙏
12:10
Helium Improvement Proposals. Contribute to helium/HIP development by creating an account on GitHub.
12:10
could you pin this perhaps pls (edited)
Avatar
the HIP is pinned above.
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 12:13 PM
yeah I know I just meant as a quick link here in discord for easy access. 🤷‍♂️ the types to need them are typically quicker to ask than to dig (myself included in fairness) (edited)
12:14
also FAQ is a good idea for the general HIP template if it's not there already 🙂
Avatar
Has it been considered that a stake that's >3.5x the world average yearly income somewhat undermines the idea of "the people's network"?
Avatar
@OneHP there will be services that will take partial stakes in due time
Avatar
Avatar
OneHP
Has it been considered that a stake that's >3.5x the world average yearly income somewhat undermines the idea of "the people's network"?
repeatedly. the scroll back has a lot of these conversations already including earlier today.
😂 2
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 12:24 PM
LMAO
12:24
🚶‍♂️🐸 🍵
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
I think it's TBD
the max as I understand it right now would be (HNT supply / 10,000) = 7,260 validators today based on the 10k.
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
and if you didn't, based on discussion to date it's likely there will be a facilitation of third party services to offer retail stake delegation, for the less technically inclined.
appreciate the responses. all i had to do was setup the og helium hotspots and the rak hotspots - set it and forget it. im definitely interested in being a validator, but i just need more direction. the github hip25 article didnt really spell it out for me on how to become a validator.
Avatar
Avatar
Hashem
appreciate the responses. all i had to do was setup the og helium hotspots and the rak hotspots - set it and forget it. im definitely interested in being a validator, but i just need more direction. the github hip25 article didnt really spell it out for me on how to become a validator.
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 12:26 PM
You will probably not need to worry, there will almost certainly be delegated staking of some sort if you can't stand one up yourself.
Avatar
Avatar
E R I K
the max as I understand it right now would be (HNT supply / 10,000) = 7,260 validators today based on the 10k.
223M / 10000 = 22k validators. I think we can have a nice group of 100 based on that 🙂 (partially a joke, i don't expect 100% of HNT will be staked) (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 12:26 PM
If you have the time I would say even standing up your own is within reach if you can read through the DIY guide(s).
Avatar
recent addition to faq: https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/master/0025-validators.md#frequently-asked-questions Q: How can I prepare to run a Validator node on the testnet? A: Check out the miner software and run it on the server you want to use. Note you'll also need a recent Rust and a C/C++ tool chain. Miner software here: https://github.com/helium/miner#installing-miner-from-source Instructions on how to run a miner here: https://docs.helium.com/mine-hnt/build-a-packet-forwarder/#run-the-miner
🙏 2
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 12:46 PM
nice @cyborg , good idea
👍 2
Avatar
thanks @cyborg. i definitely am gonna need to have my hand held to become a validator 🤣
Avatar
Avatar
Hashem
thanks @cyborg. i definitely am gonna need to have my hand held to become a validator 🤣
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 1:01 PM
FWIW most of it is in initial setup. any updates etc can mostly be automated
Avatar
Avatar
Hashem
appreciate the responses. all i had to do was setup the og helium hotspots and the rak hotspots - set it and forget it. im definitely interested in being a validator, but i just need more direction. the github hip25 article didnt really spell it out for me on how to become a validator.
yea it's definitely not that easy. i wrote the initial "run a miner" readme, but beyond that you need to worry about things like diskspace and upgrades
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 1:19 PM
yeah don't mean to suggest it's "easy" just "don't let yourself get intimidated out of trying it"
Avatar
i will make it a mission to make it as easy as possible
👍 4
Avatar
yeah, you'll either need to automate upgrades or keep on top of it
13:28
easy to stop absorbing the chain because some var activated and you didn't update
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
evan
easy to stop absorbing the chain because some var activated and you didn't update
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 1:52 PM
I recall there was one issue w/ DIY where there were multiple point releases between one night and the next so as part of the nightly update check it skipped over the update w/ the new chain var and got forked (pun intended)
13:53
at least that's what I recall the diagnosis being..
Avatar
we have definitely made errors in that regard, but we know how to do that more safely now
👍 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/08/2021 1:54 PM
oh didn't mean to say it was an error on devs part
13:54
it was just a quirk of nightly auto update combined with a quirk of a patch
13:54
just an example of what you were saying about easy to stop absorbing the chain, even w/ auto updates. 🙂
Avatar
oh we've certainly made plentiful errors
Avatar
I’m not sure if this was already covered or maybe I missed it in the HIP itself. Is there a plan to implement smart contracts for the staking?
Avatar
no, just native transactions. personally i'd hope to not have smart contracts on helium
💯 1
Avatar
I agree (edited)
Avatar
Gotcha, so what is the escrow process for the staked HNT?
Avatar
"escrow process"?
Avatar
Yeah I would assume the staked 10k hnt will be held by helium organization? So is that going to be a simple wallet transfer or something else?
Avatar
no one gets it
14:42
it just comes back after the requisite number of blocks
Avatar
So the staked HNT leaves their wallet and then comes back - isn’t that typically an escrow or a smart contract ? Where does the staked HNT go in the interim?
Avatar
we track the staked amount in the validator ledger entry. on unstaking, we basically write a note to ourselves in the ledger to give it back to the owner's account after however many blocks
Avatar
Avatar
wizkid2020
So the staked HNT leaves their wallet and then comes back - isn’t that typically an escrow or a smart contract ? Where does the staked HNT go in the interim?
smart contracts are basically fancy programmable transactions. in this case we would just pre-program the function required for staking into a native transaction
👍 2
Avatar
Are we going to have to keep private keys and a wallet on each validator or can the owner be a different wallet?
Avatar
owner is a different wallet
15:39
I would strongly encourage you not to use the same keys for both roles, but I haven't made it impossible
15:39
there's even a transaction for moving the stake from one validator to another so if you validator gets owned you can just move your stake to a new one
Avatar
Amazing
15:45
Key management was my one worry
15:45
But this makes it much easier
15:46
Now just to add the delegation transactions to that awesome Helium Ledger web app someone made (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
evan
there's even a transaction for moving the stake from one validator to another so if you validator gets owned you can just move your stake to a new one
Apologies, but if there is a 1st grade reader on the security implications of running a validator, could you drop a link?
Avatar
@Artemis that will be fine
15:55
our preference for cloud is all about carrier grade redundant connections and power
15:56
@ferebee can you narrow the question down a little?
15:56
the existing question is isomorphic to "what do I need to know about running a server that is open to the internet"
Avatar
Original message was deleted or could not be loaded.
@evan I posted earlier and am being shy now. I’ve run colo servers since the last millenium, but haven’t dealt with crypto previously. What is the threat level – can an attacker take over the staked HNT? I have appropriate servers running under a hypervisor (SmartOS) and could spin up a VM to participate in the testnet, which would probably be fine. If a mainnet validator is risking its HNT stake, obviously that would be an attractive target and would require maximum security, including protections against things like attacks from one VM to another. So, that.
16:04
there is no risk to the staked HNT
16:04
as long as you don't keep the owner keys (which are separate from the validator keys) on the same machine
Avatar
Sorry, meant to reply to @Artemis that I’ve been running bare-metal servers with Hetzner for many years, and they have suitable servers from 27 €/month…
Avatar
you can keep the owner keys in a hardware wallet, or on an airgapped machine
16:05
whatever floats your boat. if your validator gets compromised, you can wipe it, start a new one with the security holes fixed and then transfer the stake to the clean set of validator keys
16:05
no delay
Avatar
OK, cool. That sounds easy. I currently have a bit of HNT in the Helium iPhone app, but intend to transfer that to the CLI wallet with sharded keys, which seems fairly safe. I was thinking maybe the staked HNT is vulnerable on-line, which would be a different matter entirely. Since we have a 12 month cooldown period in Germany from a tax perspective, the 5 month staking cooldown is quite manageable. Thanks!
Avatar
you're quite welcome
Avatar
Will it be possible to designate a separate wallet from the staking wallet to receive rewards?
👍 2
Avatar
I'm pretty sure the owner would receive the rewards (edited)
Avatar
Sure, but it might make sense to stake from a wallet that’s in a safe deposit box but wish to send rewards to your app wallet
Avatar
not currently supported
16:25
I'm not sure how to do it right, honestly, and I feel like it's outside the scope of this work
16:26
I feel like a more general and simpler version of 24 might suit, but honestly this is a convenience that's easy to work around, I feel like
👍 2
Avatar
I honestly don’t understand the threat model where people don’t feel keeping working copies of sharded keys on multiple USB flash drives is not sufficient, and we need “hardware wallets”. It’s not like this is a Jeff Bezos/MBS situation. Please explain, happy to learn.
Avatar
yeah, I'm not sure I see the need for it either, but lots of people like the idea
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I honestly don’t understand the threat model where people don’t feel keeping working copies of sharded keys on multiple USB flash drives is not sufficient, and we need “hardware wallets”. It’s not like this is a Jeff Bezos/MBS situation. Please explain, happy to learn.
If one is running multiple servers for multiple parties overdoing it on security has appeal
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
i will make it a mission to make it as easy as possible
Then you can count me in as a validator
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
If one is running multiple servers for multiple parties overdoing it on security has appeal
Quite! But OTOH I do think the validator, sitting on the open Internet 24/7, has a much larger attack surface than wherever you occasionally run your primary wallets. Before I looked into the CLI-wallet, I thought I would just install the Helium app on a burner iPhone 6s, keep it turned off most of the time, and use that for my primary wallet. Any secondary addresses that don’t need to have full access to the staked HNT can run wherever. As @evan just said, the validator keys are separate from the owner keys, so if they are exposed, the stake itself is not at risk. That sounds quite safe AFAICS.
Avatar
SimpliceJeff 02/09/2021 12:37 AM
Will there be a formal request process for those who want to stake or how will that process work?
Avatar
Zwibbledibble42 02/09/2021 6:43 AM
Any idea what kind of data transfer rates we’re going to be looking at to run a node? Determining if AWS or an alternative hosting service will be most cost effective
Avatar
Avatar
Zwibbledibble42
Any idea what kind of data transfer rates we’re going to be looking at to run a node? Determining if AWS or an alternative hosting service will be most cost effective
typical hotspot currently uses about 20-30gb/month, so it'll be north of that assuming your validator makes it into CG more often than the current average hotspot
Avatar
Zwibbledibble42 02/09/2021 6:51 AM
Thanks!
Avatar
i would expect that to change a lot over the first six months, but I have no idea whether or not the changes will be significant. as we phase in light gateways, gossip will go down a lot, but at the same time, we'll be scaling up the consensus group, which will cause it to use more bandwidth, so it might all be a wash or an increase.
👍 2
Avatar
is there an estimated date for the video or just sometime this week?
Avatar
I think thursday but @pharkmillups could maybe confirm
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/09/2021 7:34 AM
Yeah. I think it's dropping along with a few other resources. @emureay ?
Avatar
Yep that’s correct
👍 1
Avatar
sounds good, thank you
Avatar
are light gateways a separate HIP?
Avatar
they will be, yes
👍 1
Avatar
So I was trying to answer my own question by reading through the conversation but I'm still a little confused, on the cooldown... If I stake does the cooldown clock start then, or only when I unstake? So it would be my staking time plus 5 months before I would have access to my HNTs?
Avatar
your HNT stake's locked for ~5 months (cooldown period), rewards would show up immediately, you'd have access to your stake after 5 months, if you chose to unstake, then you would no longer be an active validator and would not share in rewards
Avatar
okay thats how I first read it, but was unsure by the wording in other parts. Thanks!
👍 1
Avatar
so there's some subtlety there, and I'd love some clarification from the community here: in other chains, do you or don't you continue to earn rewards during the unstaking period. I've assumed not, but there seems to be enough confusion around the issue that I'd love to hear if there are some chains that do it
Avatar
Avatar
Tinman
So I was trying to answer my own question by reading through the conversation but I'm still a little confused, on the cooldown... If I stake does the cooldown clock start then, or only when I unstake? So it would be my staking time plus 5 months before I would have access to my HNTs?
Funkyanimal 02/09/2021 1:09 PM
Had the same question... Thanks for clarifying; some other chains have a cool down/unstaking period after a period of being a validator. (edited)
Avatar
I haven't looked into other chains, but i also assumed that once you unstake you dont earn rewards. i would think that if someone is unstaking, they are probably looking to turn off their server which means at that point they dont want to be a validator anymore
Avatar
Avatar
evan
so there's some subtlety there, and I'd love some clarification from the community here: in other chains, do you or don't you continue to earn rewards during the unstaking period. I've assumed not, but there seems to be enough confusion around the issue that I'd love to hear if there are some chains that do it
Deleted User 02/09/2021 1:16 PM
Once you unstake you stop earning immediately whether you're a validator or a delegator.
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
Once you unstake you stop earning immediately whether you're a validator or a delegator.
where?
Avatar
Deleted User 02/09/2021 1:17 PM
Good example is Cosmos
Avatar
so on all the chains you know about?
Avatar
Deleted User 02/09/2021 1:19 PM
That is correct. I haven't encountered a chain where you earn during the cooldown/unbonding period.
Avatar
I'm new to PoS and not earning during cooldown seems to make sense to me to encourage people to never leave, but from a quick google it looks like at least solana continues to earn during cooldown period https://docs.solana.com/running-validator/validator-stake#:~:text=While%20cooling%20down%2C%20your%20stake,the%20size%20of%20your%20stake.
Avatar
it also has a very short period, I think?
Avatar
Deleted User 02/09/2021 1:49 PM
I don't want to guess on that. I believe @rawrmaan runs a Solana validator and might offer better thoughts
Avatar
2 days max cooldown
13:50
An epoch is every 2 days
13:50
So if you unstake 10 mins before the epoch ends, it will only take 10 mins
13:51
The only stipulation is that no more than 25% of total stake in the network can change per epoch, so if there are big moves, it might take multiple epochs for your unstake
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
So if you unstake 10 mins before the epoch ends, it will only take 10 mins
Deleted User 02/09/2021 1:52 PM
Nice loophole
Avatar
panagos-o-enas 02/09/2021 3:00 PM
@evan the only option one could benefit without locking amounts was the crypto earn function as far as i can remember where you could stake flexible and withdraw at any time
Avatar
My other thought on validators not earning while they're in cooldown - so we want to not only maintain validators, but maintain RUNNING validators. If you no longer earn once you unstake, you have no benefit to continuing to run a validator once you unstake. So the moment you unstake, you're likely to take down your validator. That being the case, there is NO heads up for when validators will go offline. If a bunch of validators decided to unstake all at once (not saying it will happen, just theoretically), then they could all go offline at once. If however you continue to still earn while in the cooldown period, the network should be able to see how many have unstaked recently and hopefully plan accordingly for validators that are possibly going offline in 5 months, but now they're encouraged to stay and give the 5 months warning so they can continue to earn in that time.
👍 1
Avatar
yeah, there's that
16:10
we could also reward for some intermediate period
16:10
limit the number of soon-to-unstake validators that can go into the group
16:10
dunno
Avatar
Avatar
panagos-o-enas
@evan the only option one could benefit without locking amounts was the crypto earn function as far as i can remember where you could stake flexible and withdraw at any time
If you're talking the crypto.com earn, then even with them and their credit cards and the earning stake, you lock in the money for a set period, and the moment that period is up you can either unstake immediately or you can renew stake again to continue at the same rate. So theirs is just a time to time stake, and does require renewing stake (and at a possibly different stake amount to maintain the same rewards)
Avatar
Avatar
evan
we could also reward for some intermediate period
how about a discounted rate during cooldown
16:11
prevents people from continually going into cooldown to have the option to withdraw often, and also encourage them to stay online even when they are in cooldown
16:12
like their stake is only valued at half during cooldown or something
16:12
in terms of their rewards - including any overstake if/when that's implemented
Avatar
Austin|Solana 02/09/2021 4:13 PM
Cooldown + slashing is helpful, otherwise yeah what's the incentive to not just power off?
Avatar
MusicMonarch 02/09/2021 4:14 PM
Can someone make a simple “for dummies” explanation of how and when I, a mere mortal, can stake my HNT? 😄
16:14
(there's a FAQ in the hip link at the top)
16:15
(there's also a video coming on thursday)
Avatar
Austin|Solana 02/09/2021 4:19 PM
Staking (in general) is a very straightforward process
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
Cooldown + slashing is helpful, otherwise yeah what's the incentive to not just power off?
Are you saying slashing during cooldown? Cause even if there is slashing but you're still getting a full rewards payout, there's no incentive for me to not simply start my cooldown the same day I stake my HNT and then just decide every 5 months if I want to pull out my stake (edited)
Avatar
Austin|Solana 02/09/2021 4:20 PM
So the reason cool down periods exist is to protect the network from stake just going offline. So automatic unstaking is also used in some places
16:21
so as long as the validator announces its intention to go poof at block Y, it could earn full rewards up to that point
16:22
not saying we should do that, its just an option
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
so as long as the validator announces its intention to go poof at block Y, it could earn full rewards up to that point
I guess there's just zero incentive to not ALWAYS be in cooldown in that case though to give you a free out every 5 months, and if you're always doing that then the network really still doesn't know if they're losing you or not if everyone is always in cooldown and just a choice of whether or not they restake again when the cooldown ends.
Avatar
Austin|Solana 02/09/2021 4:24 PM
So there's two different "issues" one is delegated stake and other is the validator itself
Avatar
Cause I would absolutely take advantage of that loophole and always stay in cooldown to allow me to exit if I saw something with HNT price going down, etc.
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
So there's two different "issues" one is delegated stake and other is the validator itself
Ok, not sure I understand the difference between those in how they apply to helium if you don't mind educating me
Avatar
Austin|Solana 02/09/2021 4:26 PM
so HIP25 says eventually I could delegate to a validator you run
16:26
so you would pay the cost to run the validator, and you'd get some percentage of the rewards my tokens generate. In that model I could request to unstake my tokens, and, say, have to wait 24 hours. After that period of time, the tokens would automatically be returned to my wallet, but earn full rewards for that 24 hour period (edited)
Avatar
OK, but I'm assuming me, as the validator runner, would be required to maintain the full 10k HNT stake?
Avatar
Austin|Solana 02/09/2021 4:28 PM
It depends, to earn rewards yes
16:29
But a validator falling below the minimum stake actually doesn't damage the network, because the network was aware that was going to happen
Avatar
Sorry, be back later - thanks for the info, but dinners up!
🍴 1
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
so HIP25 says eventually I could delegate to a validator you run
just a heads up, future updates such as: delegation, overstaking, and other features will be subject to community hip approval process
Avatar
Austin|Solana 02/09/2021 4:56 PM
Yep like all HIPs 🙂 it’s just part of the scope of 25
16:57
I mean any hip could theoretically be repealed
Avatar
Question (sorry if asked): if I were to be a validator and my 10k HNT were staked on the aws. What would I need to do? Is there a step-by-step instruction site? I ask because Ive never done aws before. Also: isn't Amazon our competition? Just asking
Avatar
AWS is an option but not required. You want to host it somewhere with similar hardware/virtual machines and a decent internet connection that doesn't have firewalls and nat in the way.
Avatar
I understand that. My office has firewalls. I'm just an average Joe so AWS is my best bet
Avatar
Avatar
jk2020
Question (sorry if asked): if I were to be a validator and my 10k HNT were staked on the aws. What would I need to do? Is there a step-by-step instruction site? I ask because Ive never done aws before. Also: isn't Amazon our competition? Just asking
we'll definitely provide overall, generic instructions, but step-by-step for different VPS (e.g., AWS, Digital Cloud, or... ) will likely need to come from community (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Hopefully there'll be more options than aws ie digital cloud, akash (?) (edited)
Avatar
as long as requirements met, shouldn't matter which vps is used
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Austin|Solana
But a validator falling below the minimum stake actually doesn't damage the network, because the network was aware that was going to happen
Sorry for the delay - so per the later comments, for now though, we're only looking at PoS, not DPoS. In which case the only way for the network to anticipate the loss of a validator is via the cooldown period, which goes back to my initial thoughts, that if there's no benefit to keeping a miner online if rewards are gone during cooldown, the network doesn't have any heads up that a validator is turning off. Or if they get full rewards still, that all validators should in their own best interest always be in a cooldown state, and again you never really know if the validator will restake or go offline when cooldown is over. (edited)
Avatar
Austin|Solana 02/09/2021 5:47 PM
Yeah, I'd agree without any penalties that's the case
Avatar
Maybe just split the cooldown period into two equal parts? First half your validator is still eligible for full rewards, second half it is not. That way, there’s a little bit of heads up and achieves the full cooldown/lockup effect (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
para2
Maybe just split the cooldown period into two equal parts? First half your validator is still eligible for full rewards, second half it is not. That way, there’s a little bit of heads up and achieves the full cooldown/lockup effect (edited)
In net, the validators rewards for this are the same as half rewards during cooldown, but this would only incentivize the node to stay online during the first half of the cooldown. If you do half rewards the whole time, they're encouraged to stay online the whole time and give the network the full heads up that they're leaving instead of only half time (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
In net, the validators rewards for this are the same as half rewards during cooldown, but this would only incentivize the node to stay online during the first half of the cooldown. If you do half rewards the whole time, they're encouraged to stay online the whole time and give the network the full heads up that they're leaving instead of only half time (edited)
True, the upside with half reward would be that the validator would stay up till end of cooldown. Upside of half-full/half-zero reward is that the reward would be same per validator within the selected group. In the half reward case, say if half the validators in the group was in cooldown, then the other half would be getting a 50% bump in rewards. Maybe that’s desirable as that might incentivize more to come online (edited)
Avatar
SillyFace (Muse) 02/09/2021 6:28 PM
Hi how does one become a validator ?
18:28
Where can I read more about this?
Avatar
Avatar
para2
True, the upside with half reward would be that the validator would stay up till end of cooldown. Upside of half-full/half-zero reward is that the reward would be same per validator within the selected group. In the half reward case, say if half the validators in the group was in cooldown, then the other half would be getting a 50% bump in rewards. Maybe that’s desirable as that might incentivize more to come online (edited)
Yea, I guess I don't see any benefit to every validator getting the same reward in the selected group other than it's a bit easier math. Cause in the end of 5 months, that additional benefit will be going to every validator as essentially everyone will be in the pool with the "half staked" validator on average.
Avatar
Avatar
SillyFace (Muse)
Hi how does one become a validator ?
You cannot yet, the feature hasn’t launched. The HIP mentioned in the topic is the complete documentation for now. Hoping to have a testnet soon
Avatar
SillyFace (Muse) 02/09/2021 6:29 PM
Thanks. Do we need a certain # of tokens to be a validator? If so how many ?
Avatar
Avatar
SillyFace (Muse)
Thanks. Do we need a certain # of tokens to be a validator? If so how many ?
https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/master/0025-validators.md the proposed amount of tokens is 10,000 HNT
Helium Improvement Proposals. Contribute to helium/HIP development by creating an account on GitHub.
Avatar
SillyFace (Muse) 02/09/2021 6:31 PM
Thanks
18:32
If we have multiples of that could we have numerous validators?
Avatar
Avatar
SillyFace (Muse)
If we have multiples of that could we have numerous validators?
Yep!
Avatar
Happy Dance!
Avatar
I remember talk a while back about 1 cloud miner with multiple packet forwarders. If the validators are required to have a static IP address, is this so that light gateways can be the packet forwarder to that validators?
Avatar
we don't imagine it working quite like that, no
21:34
the static ip/no dynamic NAT thing is mostly for addressing
21:35
light gateways will connect via http2, so having a static ip is good for them, too
Avatar
What about dynamic dns with a dynamic ip?
21:36
Still addressable that way
21:36
For those of us that are techies and have adequate setup at home
Avatar
if dns works and the port doesn't change, that's fine
👍 1
Avatar
Does anyone know how many wallets currently possess at least 10,000 HNT?
Avatar
not right off hand, but is it particularly telling?
Avatar
people can split wallets, people can pool together
💯 1
🦾 1
Avatar
Avatar
evan
people can split wallets, people can pool together
just to be clear, as far as i can tell, the design does not prohibit a single wallet from staking multiple validators? no need to split the wallet to accomplish this
Avatar
Avatar
louis
just to be clear, as far as i can tell, the design does not prohibit a single wallet from staking multiple validators? no need to split the wallet to accomplish this
Yeah, that’s my understanding, based on FAQ
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
louis
just to be clear, as far as i can tell, the design does not prohibit a single wallet from staking multiple validators? no need to split the wallet to accomplish this
I just meant that the richest list doesn't necessarily tell you a lot
👍 1
Avatar
I run multiple wallets for tax reasons but may do some transfers to get to 10k.. So it may a good guesstimator but wouldn't base anything on it
👆 1
Avatar
also the two biggest wallets are binance, who knows how that splits out
22:25
really hard to tell what the uptake is going to be
👍 1
Avatar
I am guesstimating 600 validators the first week, 1200 by end of first month and a slow increase to 1500 in 4 months based solely on the tea leaves in my cup... Which is weird because I don't really drink tea
😮 2
Avatar
I would be shocked if it happened that quickly, but I hope you're right
✅ 1
Avatar
1500 validators a month based on 16 picked up each time would bring to statisticaly 200 hnt a month? (based on 300,000k)
Avatar
Avatar
evan
people can split wallets, people can pool together
How would pooling work? Could you elaborate on the process?
Avatar
Pooling won’t be on-chain (at least not initially). You could split a validator with a friend, or there will likely be services that allow you to stake an arbitrary amount of HNT. (edited)
Avatar
Is there a specific reason for the 10K limit? Seems like a lot, as only 575 people seem to have the required amount of money (aside from exchanges of course). Only a fraction of these holders probably have the required knowledge to run a validator, meaning that would drastically decrease the potential amount of validators on the network. (edited)
01:12
Additionally, @evan, you mentioned people would be able to pool together. Is that a native on-chain feature? Or does that need to be done in a trust-requiring way?
Avatar
This has been discussed a few times in the channel.
01:13
Also please don’t ping folks who may not be online.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
This has been discussed a few times in the channel.
Oh, apologies, should have checked that first.
Avatar
Especially, in this case, overnight. You can see the light next to their alias which is usually a good indicator of online status. (edited)
01:14
As far as your question on pooling, no plan to initially put it on chain but we suspect that if there’s enough demand, infrastructure providers will come forward to offer their services.
👍 2
receive 1
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
As far as your question on pooling, no plan to initially put it on chain but we suspect that if there’s enough demand, infrastructure providers will come forward to offer their services.
Makes sense, thanks.
💯 1
Avatar
A number of people are pooling on trust and such
Avatar
Avatar
Eddie E.
I remember talk a while back about 1 cloud miner with multiple packet forwarders. If the validators are required to have a static IP address, is this so that light gateways can be the packet forwarder to that validators?
also note that light gateways will talk to validators for routing information and other chain related facts, but will packet forward to routers (which are not the validators) (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
madninja
also note that light gateways will talk to validators for routing information and other chain related facts, but will packet forward to routers (which are not the validators) (edited)
To be sure I understand correctly - light gateways currently (DIYs) send packets to cloud miners, then cloud miners forward to routers, but this will transition to light gateways sending directly to routers when LGs are implemented and not through a cloud miner/validator?
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
To be sure I understand correctly - light gateways currently (DIYs) send packets to cloud miners, then cloud miners forward to routers, but this will transition to light gateways sending directly to routers when LGs are implemented and not through a cloud miner/validator?
The light gateways fetch the routing table from a validator, then deliver packets directly to the correct router
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
The light gateways fetch the routing table from a validator, then deliver packets directly to the correct router
Got it, thanks. So current DIY's would still go to their current cloud miner, but that cloud miner would eventually just become a cloud forwarder in between DIY gateway and router?
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
Got it, thanks. So current DIY's would still go to their current cloud miner, but that cloud miner would eventually just become a cloud forwarder in between DIY gateway and router?
People could still run full nodes (the current miner) if they wanted, it’s just not needed. Might make more sense to upgrade the DIY to light status instead
Avatar
Hey, I'm late to the party. If I want to setup a validator node, I simply need to setup and run the miner software? Can I run that in the cloud even without a radio connected to the instance? Is there anything validator-specific things to do when configuring this miner?
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
Hey, I'm late to the party. If I want to setup a validator node, I simply need to setup and run the miner software? Can I run that in the cloud even without a radio connected to the instance? Is there anything validator-specific things to do when configuring this miner?
Angry Pickle Bear 02/10/2021 7:23 AM
You're actually early to the party, there will be more info and guides on how to run a validator later.
Avatar
Sweet. For now I should just figure out how to run the miner software in the cloud?
Avatar
There is some info in the pinned FAQ that should point you in the right direction https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/master/0025-validators.md#frequently-asked-questions (edited)
Helium Improvement Proposals. Contribute to helium/HIP development by creating an account on GitHub.
👍 2
Avatar
Last question for today, is there a particular reason the FAQ mentions a T2 class of instance instead of the M6g (ARM) class?
Avatar
just no experience with it
Avatar
cool, I'll be the test subject for that. In my experience, the ARM instances in AWS give you much better bang for your buck if your software is ARM compatible.
Avatar
it should be
🤣 1
07:31
I mean it runs on the hotspots, which are ARM64, but I have no idea how well it will work on the server chips
07:31
should be fine?
Avatar
yeah, that's where my laughing comes in. I would hope the miner software runs on ARM considering the hotspots are ARM.
Avatar
it's a relatively immature line
07:32
which is why I hedge
Avatar
more mature than Helium 😉
07:33
if it doesn't work out, I'll just toss it and start over
Avatar
Is it time for a light gateways channel?
👍 2
Avatar
Also, I would suggest somehow these instances are diversified, to ensure HA even during major (internet/Peering) network outages. People seem to think that Amazon is invulnerable... what should however be actually vulnerable is the network we are building, so hosting everything in a single cloud provider (even if it has a large number of nodes) feels reckless.
Avatar
I don't think anyone is advocating for using a single cloud provider. I might host it at home once I figure some stuff out in AWS.
Avatar
Avatar
Eddie E.
Is it time for a light gateways channel?
#gateway-development
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
People could still run full nodes (the current miner) if they wanted, it’s just not needed. Might make more sense to upgrade the DIY to light status instead
When you say upgrade DIY to light status, are you talking about upgrading a DIY Pi? If I've got just a 3rd packet packet forwarder I'm guessing I can't load anything on it, so would still need the cloud portion for it to send packets to, but that cloud miner would just become a "cloud light" instead of full node I would guess? If so, I would think Helium would just release the updated version of the cloud miner as the light version and everything set to autoupdate would just start working that way instead.
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
When you say upgrade DIY to light status, are you talking about upgrading a DIY Pi? If I've got just a 3rd packet packet forwarder I'm guessing I can't load anything on it, so would still need the cloud portion for it to send packets to, but that cloud miner would just become a "cloud light" instead of full node I would guess? If so, I would think Helium would just release the updated version of the cloud miner as the light version and everything set to autoupdate would just start working that way instead.
The light gateway client runs directly on the gateway itself. Most are running openwrt and can install the package directly (see the gateway-rs repo)
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
#gateway-development
Too easy.. Make it harder.. Just say there is one and drop the mic. 😋
😂 1
Avatar
You could still do what you’re describing if you wanted, it’s just an extra step you might not need
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
The light gateway client runs directly on the gateway itself. Most are running openwrt and can install the package directly (see the gateway-rs repo)
Ahh, got it. Like the dragino and some others I've tested I think are openwrt - but I don't think mikrotik is
07:55
Thanks
Avatar
Microtik has their own OS. We’re talking to them about including it. Dragino already works. The supported hardware is listed in the repo, it hasn’t been too painful so far to add new gateways as we find them
Avatar
Avatar
Wallarick
Also, I would suggest somehow these instances are diversified, to ensure HA even during major (internet/Peering) network outages. People seem to think that Amazon is invulnerable... what should however be actually vulnerable is the network we are building, so hosting everything in a single cloud provider (even if it has a large number of nodes) feels reckless.
yes, there is no AWS requirement. as soon as we launch mainnet I need to start working on a way to force location diversity, but it isn't super simple
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I mean it runs on the hotspots, which are ARM64, but I have no idea how well it will work on the server chips
Miner has been running for about 35 minutes on the M6g.xlarge instance just fine. Over a period of 1m, average CPU utilization comes near 50%. Period of 5m, average CPU is 25%. Below is the graph with 1m periods: Correct me if I'm wrong, this miner is basically doing nothing until more info on validators comes out, yes?
Avatar
if you loaded the genesis block it is now attempting to sync the entire chain
08:44
the testnet, when it starts, will not share a genesis block
Avatar
okay, will have I have run some commands to wipe it and get it setup on the testnet in the future?
08:45
you'll need to rebuild it on a different miner branch
Avatar
cool cool, I'll just sit tight and wait for that. What's the ETA on that, a few weeks?
Avatar
wipe the block store, etc
08:46
hopefully next week sometime, but it'll be quite rough at first
Avatar
no worries, I don't mind being a guinea pig if it means I'll be first in line to stake 😉
Avatar
we will start a channel soon for validator dev
09:01
not sure when, perhaps after the test net launch
Avatar
Avatar
evan
we will start a channel soon for validator dev
this week
👀 2
Avatar
Avatar
cyborg
this week
☹ GHOSTY BOI 02/10/2021 9:13 AM
today 👀
👀 1
09:14
#testnet-ops
09:19
yup
09:20
stay tuned for upcoming announcements tomorrow
❤️ 5
Avatar
Somone has a guide on how to set up a validator?
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
Somone has a guide on how to set up a validator?
soon
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
soon
😆 1
Avatar
aww hes cute ha
Avatar
freshleysqueeched 02/10/2021 12:31 PM
Hey so I'm looking to deploy between 50-100 hotspots. Considering waiting for validators to become more mature if that is going to significantly bring down the hardware costs within 1-2 months. Any estimates on when the hotspot hardware would switch over?
Avatar
Avatar
freshleysqueeched
Hey so I'm looking to deploy between 50-100 hotspots. Considering waiting for validators to become more mature if that is going to significantly bring down the hardware costs within 1-2 months. Any estimates on when the hotspot hardware would switch over?
In q2 if all goes well. Deploying significantly earlier might have a greater benefit than delaying for cheaper hardware. This is opinion not advice.
Avatar
freshleysqueeched 02/10/2021 12:34 PM
haha my thoughts exactly
Avatar
Avatar
freshleysqueeched
Hey so I'm looking to deploy between 50-100 hotspots. Considering waiting for validators to become more mature if that is going to significantly bring down the hardware costs within 1-2 months. Any estimates on when the hotspot hardware would switch over?
it's not going to be 1-2 months, more like 2-3 quarters (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
it's not going to be 1-2 months, more like 2-3 quarters (edited)
boisebrewer 02/10/2021 1:04 PM
Is that for validators going live or hardware costs coming down?
Avatar
Avatar
boisebrewer
Is that for validators going live or hardware costs coming down?
hardware costs coming down. there's work beyond the initial validator release that is required for light hotspots to be possible (like moving poc challenge construction to validators, etc). more HIP's will be forthcoming for that work
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
hardware costs coming down. there's work beyond the initial validator release that is required for light hotspots to be possible (like moving poc challenge construction to validators, etc). more HIP's will be forthcoming for that work
boisebrewer 02/10/2021 1:10 PM
Thanks!
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
In q2 if all goes well. Deploying significantly earlier might have a greater benefit than delaying for cheaper hardware. This is opinion not advice.
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/10/2021 4:04 PM
halving considerations factor in here as well so I'd second that opinion not advice 👍
Avatar
Makes things skew more towards deploy those bad boys posthaste in my opinion not advice
💯 2
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
Makes things skew more towards deploy those bad boys posthaste in my opinion not advice
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/10/2021 4:29 PM
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
Click to see attachment 🖼️
hotspots 4
🐮 3
🔔 3
🚀 1
😂 1
Avatar
Deleted User 02/10/2021 9:26 PM
Please abstain from posting these memes and gifs here. There's an entire channel dedicated to them.
👍 1
Avatar
Is the consensus election going to work the same way as before i.e. the best performing validator servers is kept in the group once elected? And what metrics decide what is a good performing validator?
Avatar
yes, it's roughly the same code. I've changed how selection works in a way that doesn't matter to anyone but me to get finer control over the process
22:16
we may need to retune the penalties after the switchover
22:17
right now the penalties come from being observed as down and from failing to execute a part of the consensus process (a proxy for speed)
Avatar
Alright thanks a lot evan 👌
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
hardware costs coming down. there's work beyond the initial validator release that is required for light hotspots to be possible (like moving poc challenge construction to validators, etc). more HIP's will be forthcoming for that work
Would this in turn lower the rewards for these hotspots? Or HS in general won't be issuing poc chalanges at all?
Avatar
Another question: How would you know if you get penalized?
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
Would this in turn lower the rewards for these hotspots? Or HS in general won't be issuing poc chalanges at all?
FrankxWhite™ 02/11/2021 4:43 AM
rewards will be lower the more hotspots are online since the hotspots share the same reward pool as far as I understood.
04:44
theoretically rewards go down daily if more hotspots go online.
04:44
additionally to that there will be the halving in August
Avatar
In regards to cooldown, should it be non-reversible? Or should it be possible to cancel the cooldown to re-stake that validator?
Avatar
I have access to enterprise grade infrastructure, so as long as I have 10000 coins and I build the forwarder is that all I need to help the network?
05:16
I am definitely interested in helping with my hardware
Avatar
Avatar
FrankxWhite™
rewards will be lower the more hotspots are online since the hotspots share the same reward pool as far as I understood.
That part is understood. What I'm reffering to is the Issuance of a POC challenge provides rewards to my understanding. That would be offloaded (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
Would this in turn lower the rewards for these hotspots? Or HS in general won't be issuing poc chalanges at all?
we haven't proposed anything in a HIP yet, but the actual construction of challenges would move to validators from hotspots. right now creating challenges is 0.95% of the rewards split relatively evenly across all Hotspots. im not sure what should happen to those rewards, it's up for discussion when the HIP is created
👍🏻 2
Avatar
Avatar
evan
right now the penalties come from being observed as down and from failing to execute a part of the consensus process (a proxy for speed)
When you say penalties, what do you mean? I thought the only penalty originally planned was simply loss of revenue if you're offline due to not being able to make money by not being in the CG? Is that penalty some form of a slash though or if you're offline for a bit you're less likely to make it into CG when you are back online? And in terms of best performing validators staying in the group, is this just based on uptime or processing speed etc? Could make a big difference to folks choosing what instance or hardware to run things on if that will make a difference (for example the one or two times my OG hotspot has made it into CG it's fairly short, but when my cloud miner has it's made far more money I imagine as it's running on much better hardware).
Avatar
during the generation of the next group, everyone currently in the group starts with a uniform chance to be removed. we keep some metadata in each block about connection and protocol execution, and everyone's chance of being reselected is adjusted based on that
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
we haven't proposed anything in a HIP yet, but the actual construction of challenges would move to validators from hotspots. right now creating challenges is 0.95% of the rewards split relatively evenly across all Hotspots. im not sure what should happen to those rewards, it's up for discussion when the HIP is created
Deleted User 02/11/2021 8:00 AM
The construction of challenges moving from hotspots to validators is a good thing. However, are you mentally prepared to face the onslaught from the lone wolves?
08:06
By today's metrics this would mean over 10million of unmined tokens going towards validators. That is really lucrative 😉
Avatar
yea, im not really sure. it's such a tiny amount per hotspot, and ever-shrinking
08:10
could just distribute that to all hotspots, but it feels silly
Avatar
Avatar
evan
during the generation of the next group, everyone currently in the group starts with a uniform chance to be removed. we keep some metadata in each block about connection and protocol execution, and everyone's chance of being reselected is adjusted based on that
So will this again lead to some kind of "score" where we can see the connection and protocol execution metrics for our node to help determine if something needs to be done to increase selection?
Avatar
it works this way now, mostly to more swiftly eject downed nodes. validators will be less restricted, since there are currently no geographic considerations
Avatar
PastaGringo 02/11/2021 9:27 AM
Users who host validator nodes will earn the 6% rewards previously allocated to the Hotspots that were elected to the consensus group.
09:27
is it possible to simulate the potential earnings ?
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
So will this again lead to some kind of "score" where we can see the connection and protocol execution metrics for our node to help determine if something needs to be done to increase selection?
I guess the important difference here is the lack of memory. terrible performance has now downstream implications
Avatar
You just won’t be re-elected basically?
Avatar
Just to clarify- once the mainnet launches you can begin staking and running a validator at any point? As in there’s no initial sign up that closes and then you can’t join the validator pool for 5 months
Avatar
Just signed up to register interest in the testnet. Only said staking one but could be more down the road.
Avatar
Avatar
Jonah P
Just to clarify- once the mainnet launches you can begin staking and running a validator at any point? As in there’s no initial sign up that closes and then you can’t join the validator pool for 5 months
no
09:30
we might gate the start of staking
Avatar
Avatar
evan
we might gate the start of staking
So I should have the 10k HNT ready to go when the mainnet launches
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
Just signed up to register interest in the testnet. Only said staking one but could be more down the road.
Is there a place to sign up?
Avatar
Avatar
olb1ue
Is there a place to sign up?
#announcements
Avatar
this is a long term commitment. don't stake unless you would stake the 2001st node
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
#announcements
Thanks!
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I guess the important difference here is the lack of memory. terrible performance has now downstream implications
by lack of memory, you mean that it didn't have it before and it does now? If so, what sort of trail off are you giving it? Like say a node has poor performance or downtime for a day, are they penalized in selection probability for another day, week, month, etc - and by how much? And again - if that does happen, is there a way for that validator to see that negative selection biased towards them or what their score is? And is this not considered slashing as slashing is only against your stake, not earnings?
Avatar
I mean unlike score, which was persistent, all assessment here is epoch local. you can have a bad epoch, make it through on luck, and then do better in the next one with no penalty
Avatar
Just signed up with interest for testnet. Miner is compiled and running. Standing by for testing to commence 🤠
Avatar
I have a lot of setup to do, stand by for email with instructions
Avatar
Sounds good!
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I mean unlike score, which was persistent, all assessment here is epoch local. you can have a bad epoch, make it through on luck, and then do better in the next one with no penalty
got it, so it only lasts for that one epoch (30 blocks right?)
Avatar
yeah. potentially longer, as it checks the entire thing (so if the election is delayed, it has more adjustments)
Avatar
Do we need to build a packet forwarder with the raspberry pi 4B in addition to a server with the CPU/RAM requirements listed?
09:50
there is no RF component
Avatar
maybe I ended up clicking on the wrong hyperlinks
09:50
so just the server with CPU/RAM requirements listed is just fine?
Avatar
so here's the deal
09:51
for the sake of expedience, I've listed some aspirational stuff in the HIP (requirements for static ip/port)
09:52
but over time they will become requirements
09:52
high quality network is more important than CPU and RAM, to me
👍 1
Avatar
got it
Avatar
Is 10k HNT the maximum staking ?
Avatar
any vaguely recent server will probably do a fine job, but you really need solid uplink
09:53
which is where most home internet drops the ball
Avatar
any idea on the estimated minimum?
Avatar
so yes, you can run these things from home, for now, but without a static IP, it's going to get harder over time
09:54
and I don't want anyone to feel cheated that their setup no longer works despite ignoring months of warnigns
👍 1
Avatar
yeah youve provided plenty of caution signs
Avatar
@Lymph the testnet will give us the best data, I think
Avatar
okay cool thanks
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/11/2021 9:58 AM
For those of you who were waiting with bated breath on this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOEAxXaANkI
🔥 3
👍 4
Avatar
Avatar
ML
Is 10k HNT the maximum staking ?
we've decided to restrict it to the exact amount until we figure out the overstaking situation
09:59
oh god
Avatar
Evan you look great bro!
10:13
You too mark 💪
Avatar
nice to put a face to a name finally!
Avatar
I Will apply by the end of the year hahah
Avatar
panagos-o-enas 02/11/2021 10:22 AM
So the testnet time has come as it seems! Where do we apply?
Avatar
fill out the form, and we'll contact you when we're ready for testers
10:23
date for pre-halving is wrong
10:23
can someone pass this along?
👍 1
Avatar
@cyborg ^^^
Avatar
got this in the other channel, thanks
Avatar
richhomiecon 02/11/2021 10:25 AM
After watching the video, the returns that have been being discussed seem pretty overestimated. If the consensus group is only ~25% of the active validator pool, wouldn’t the actual return (in HNT and percentage terms) be roughly 25% of the numbers we’ve been discussing if there is true random selection (assuming performance will be a factor but random selection will be as well)? In the HIP it also seems to indicate that only 16 of the initial 100 will be elected, so the returns could be even lower.
Avatar
ffs...
😂 2
Avatar
Just seen the announcement. One question that came right up in me is this: If the community is targeting 1,000,000 hnt to start with, a 10.000 minimum hnt staked, that would mean 100 investors, and only 4.000.000 USD. at todays prices Isn't it so, that anyone with 4 mill USD can take over the validation of the entire ecosystem? As I've see, largest accounts have millions of HNT in them. Am i missing anything? Thank you in advance
Avatar
Avatar
richhomiecon
After watching the video, the returns that have been being discussed seem pretty overestimated. If the consensus group is only ~25% of the active validator pool, wouldn’t the actual return (in HNT and percentage terms) be roughly 25% of the numbers we’ve been discussing if there is true random selection (assuming performance will be a factor but random selection will be as well)? In the HIP it also seems to indicate that only 16 of the initial 100 will be elected, so the returns could be even lower.
for any one epoch, yes, but given random selection, the group size doesn't matter
Avatar
Avatar
Rafikiwi
Just seen the announcement. One question that came right up in me is this: If the community is targeting 1,000,000 hnt to start with, a 10.000 minimum hnt staked, that would mean 100 investors, and only 4.000.000 USD. at todays prices Isn't it so, that anyone with 4 mill USD can take over the validation of the entire ecosystem? As I've see, largest accounts have millions of HNT in them. Am i missing anything? Thank you in advance
there's no limit to the number of validators, so the target is just a reasonable minimum goal
Avatar
remember that the rewards are divided evenly between all the members of the group
10:29
I was confused by that when I started looking at the numbers
Avatar
as more HNT gets staked the cost to overtake the network increases, which is obviously the goal behind a proof of stake system
Avatar
Avatar
evan
remember that the rewards are divided evenly between all the members of the group
richhomiecon 02/11/2021 10:31 AM
When we say “group,” we mean active members of the consensus group currently getting rewarded right? So wouldn’t the total rewards be scaled down by the % of total active validators that can be in the “group” and earning CG rewards at any given time?
Avatar
the group changes every 30 minutes, recall
Avatar
Avatar
tawt_us
date for pre-halving is wrong
updated thanks for feedback
Avatar
Avatar
evan
the group changes every 30 minutes, recall
richhomiecon 02/11/2021 10:33 AM
Forgetting the random selection piece, if not all validators are in the CG and earning rewards constantly, then wouldn’t the HNT earned per validator have to be lower than the 300,000 HNT/x number of validators per month?
Avatar
given random selection and equal performance, everyone will spend more or less the same time in the group earning rewards
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
as more HNT gets staked the cost to overtake the network increases, which is obviously the goal behind a proof of stake system
Sure, but considering the fact that there are several hnt wallets with 2 times this amount, i find this minimum cap to be extremely low. Might be only me though.
Avatar
most of those wallets are either exchanges (who do not actually have claims on all of it) or investors (who're not very likely to stake a lot of it)
Avatar
Avatar
evan
given random selection and equal performance, everyone will spend more or less the same time in the group earning rewards
richhomiecon 02/11/2021 10:41 AM
Sorry if I’m missing something obvious, but assuming there’s true random selection, performance isn’t a factor (for simplicity’s sake), and ~25% of active validators can be in CG at any given time, wouldn’t the math for monthly returns be closer to (300,000 HNT/x number of validators) x 25% chance of being in a CG (and actually earning rewards)?
Avatar
it's not a percentage
10:43
it's a static number
10:43
but it cancels because the reward is divided evenly
10:44
spend a bit more time with the math, you'll see that it's correct
Avatar
Hello! I am definitely interesting in doing this but my question is how hard technically is it going to be
10:44
I am in the computer field but I dont really do hardware setup
Avatar
@Jason.G we're hoping that someone will allow Staking as a service for less technical users
10:45
there's no hardware, really
Avatar
Would there be a guide of some sort?
10:46
Right were is the AWS xlarge machine and I assume you install some stuff on it
Avatar
Avatar
evan
but it cancels because the reward is divided evenly
richhomiecon 02/11/2021 10:47 AM
Are you saying that the CG rewards are divided evenly among all active validators, even those not currently in the CG?
Avatar
no, I am not, but it works out that way over time
Avatar
Avatar
Rafikiwi
Sure, but considering the fact that there are several hnt wallets with 2 times this amount, i find this minimum cap to be extremely low. Might be only me though.
Maybe there is some confusion, it is not a cap - it is the minimum number needed before the network switches over from hotspots to validators for consensus. There is no cap on number of validators (other than the total supply of HNT). Given the amount of interest already, it does not seem remotely feasible that a bad actor will be all of the first 100. Plus, I believe it will be a manual switch over so if the helium team saw something funny, they could wait.
Avatar
Avatar
richhomiecon
Are you saying that the CG rewards are divided evenly among all active validators, even those not currently in the CG?
your analysis above is correct, expected long term rewards is a function of total validator pool size. the more validators come online, the lower your rewards will be in the long run
10:55
day to day rewards will depend on how often (or, lucky) you get elected into CG
Avatar
Avatar
evan
no, I am not, but it works out that way over time
richhomiecon 02/11/2021 10:55 AM
How are you thinking about CG size in terms of validator pool size? I know you said static number earlier but if that static number is less than the total number of validators, it would equate to a %. Would that % stay the same as the validator pool grew?
Avatar
we will make it as large as we can, it will grow over time, but it will stay in the 50-100 region for a while, I think
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Rafikiwi
Just seen the announcement. One question that came right up in me is this: If the community is targeting 1,000,000 hnt to start with, a 10.000 minimum hnt staked, that would mean 100 investors, and only 4.000.000 USD. at todays prices Isn't it so, that anyone with 4 mill USD can take over the validation of the entire ecosystem? As I've see, largest accounts have millions of HNT in them. Am i missing anything? Thank you in advance
last time i checked, majority agreed with you that minimum should be higher. just checked the poll again, looks like majority thinks 10k is reasonable https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/798317614879342622/805838338363490354 (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
evan
there's no hardware, really
ObscureCloud 02/11/2021 11:03 AM
Is anyone working on this currently? I would be interested in this - both as participating and putting something like this together.
Avatar
it's just computers?
11:03
an appliance isn't a good idea for this
🤷 1
Avatar
idk, if someone wants to provide a plug-and-play appliance, complete with included proxy or tunnel, why not?
Avatar
aka, staking facilities
Avatar
because it's a terrible idea
Avatar
Just got my web address :).
Avatar
please just use a staking service
👆 1
Avatar
helium 3
🤣 6
😹 1
👍 1
vinod 1
Avatar
hell, start a staking service! way less money than an appliance
11:06
what the hell is going on there, @capcom
Avatar
This sounds like a purchase cloud compute vs hosting it yourself? Companies like Nutanix make a lot of money selling "cloud in a box".
Avatar
Avatar
evan
what the hell is going on there, @capcom
if you have to ask
Avatar
Avatar
evan
what the hell is going on there, @capcom
It's a joke from the TV show Silicon Valley
Avatar
helpfullfox178 02/11/2021 11:08 AM
Hey I’m interested in this but I don’t have 10 000 HNT
Avatar
find some friends and band together (form an LLC (this is not legal advice))
Avatar
Or find someone to loan you the HNT. Or buy some HNT from an exchange while it's still cheap 😉
💯 1
Avatar
helpfullfox178 02/11/2021 11:11 AM
Will you ever consider decreasing the staking amount
11:11
What network speed would be required
Avatar
It is unlikely they will drop it from 10k
Avatar
helpfullfox178 02/11/2021 11:12 AM
What device would I need for this
Avatar
please read the FAQ in the hip linked in the topic
👆 1
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Click to see attachment 🖼️
👀 1
Avatar
https://dewialliance.medium.com/staking-is-coming-to-the-helium-blockchain-3239090c856f"It is not suitable or recommended to attempt to run from a home internet connection." I have similar question why, what is the likely bandwidth requirement? I have 1 gig up and down.
Avatar
Avatar
haofengshui
https://dewialliance.medium.com/staking-is-coming-to-the-helium-blockchain-3239090c856f"It is not suitable or recommended to attempt to run from a home internet connection." I have similar question why, what is the likely bandwidth requirement? I have 1 gig up and down.
its not about bandwidth, its more about reliability and static ip
Avatar
Avatar
haofengshui
https://dewialliance.medium.com/staking-is-coming-to-the-helium-blockchain-3239090c856f"It is not suitable or recommended to attempt to run from a home internet connection." I have similar question why, what is the likely bandwidth requirement? I have 1 gig up and down.
I think that's fine for now as long as you ISP isn't doing filtering or shaping
Avatar
Another way to host from home with a residential ISP is setup a thin proxy server on a cloud provider and setup a wireguard tunnel between your home server and the proxy. This gets around any traffic filtering and static IP concerns, but doesn't get around reliability. However, as long as there isn't slashing, reliability shouldn't be a huge issue.
Avatar
Wireguard makes things way easier to run a VPN tunnel. This is a pretty good idea if you're worried about shady ISP filtering or just connectivity issues.
Avatar
that's how I'm running my Filecoin server from home 😉
👍 1
Avatar
helium is no longer the peoples network
👎 1
Avatar
Avatar
Boxxy
helium is no longer the peoples network
6% of rewards going to validators makes it no longer the peoples network?
Avatar
many more hip changes will follow this
Avatar
if you say so
Avatar
Taylor Swift 02/11/2021 11:32 AM
yea, i don't get why people are jumping to these extremes
Avatar
So I consider HNT one of the few longterm holds in crypto and would love to be a part of this. Having only a very very basic knowledge of coding (can read some, cant write myself) and no experience with servers, is this a no-go for someone like me?
Avatar
@Boxxy where is this negative sentiment coming from?
Avatar
before hip 25 validating was suppose to be rewarded to hotspots
11:33
in the groups
Avatar
Avatar
Boxxy
before hip 25 validating was suppose to be rewarded to hotspots
did you read the Motivation section of the HIP? it explains why this is no longer possible
Avatar
Avatar
Scooby
So I consider HNT one of the few longterm holds in crypto and would love to be a part of this. Having only a very very basic knowledge of coding (can read some, cant write myself) and no experience with servers, is this a no-go for someone like me?
it's probably a no-go until Staking as a Service providers come online after the fact.
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
it's probably a no-go until Staking as a Service providers come online after the fact.
😦
Avatar
and in any case you have a constantly diminishing very tiny probability of becoming a consensus group member. as more hotspots come online your probability just keeps decreasing. to keep the network in a sub-optimal performance state just so 16 hotspots can hit the lottery every now and then seems silly
Avatar
pure speculation: I would imagine Binance would offer staking, even for people with less than 10k HNT.
Avatar
Does it require ongoing maintenance? i.e. could I hire someone to set it up so I hold control of my coins ?
Avatar
i have been in consensus 30+ times now sinlge lone hotspot none around for 40 miles
Avatar
Avatar
Scooby
Does it require ongoing maintenance? i.e. could I hire someone to set it up so I hold control of my coins ?
you can DM me 😉
11:35
consensus has nothing to do with hotspots near you.
Avatar
@neema.eth i understand this 10000000%
Avatar
Avatar
Boxxy
i have been in consensus 30+ times now sinlge lone hotspot none around for 40 miles
yup, just know that the probability of this continually happening is extremely slim. many people (myself include) have never had a hotspot in consensus since the HIP16 change happened. and when you have 100k+ hotspots online it will be very unlikely to ever happen. the motivation section of the HIP outlines the performance problems and why we feel this change has to be made. the lions share of rewards are still going to hotspots, it feels a little dramatic and FUD-like to claim that it is "no longer the peoples network"
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
you can DM me 😉
I might have to take you up on that. Im going to read up on everything first 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
Boxxy
i have been in consensus 30+ times now sinlge lone hotspot none around for 40 miles
to be more accurate, you probably made it into CG once, but stayed in for 30 elections. which is very different from making it in 30 times
Avatar
@capcom the peoples network" every1 can participate equally, same hardware same investments, now its pay2win basically
Avatar
maybe twice, and roughly 15 elections each?
Avatar
@para2 i know the difference in 12 spots per consensus
Avatar
Avatar
Boxxy
@para2 i know the difference in 12 spots per consensus
16
Avatar
Avatar
Boxxy
@capcom the peoples network" every1 can participate equally, same hardware same investments, now its pay2win basically
What about the 50%+ rewards that still go to hotspots?
👆 1
Avatar
@para2 16 then some times i was in 3 sometimes i was in 11
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Boxxy
@capcom the peoples network" every1 can participate equally, same hardware same investments, now its pay2win basically
☹ GHOSTY BOI 02/11/2021 11:41 AM
I plan on running a validator? am i not a people 🥲 ?
🤣 6
😆 1
Avatar
with 10k hnt, too rich to be a people Troll (edited)
Avatar
@☹ GHOSTY BOI its 2021 you are entitled to be what ever you want
Avatar
Well, if you have a better idea on how to securely move consensus off hotspots in a more people-like way, I’d love to hear it. But keeping it as-is is simply not an option for the reasons explained in the HIP
Avatar
global median annual household income is ~US$3650, so...current hotspots ($300-$500) are probably out of reach of >50% of the world population. @capcom, we can no longer call helium a people's network Troll (edited)
😬 2
hotspots 1
Avatar
@para2 lolololol
Avatar
bloody robots taking over
Avatar
Helium used to be called Skynet many years ago, so...
👀 1
11:51
HIP27 - robots
👍 1
Avatar
patiently awaiting our future overlords. <- future robots, i was always rooting for you. please have mercy...
🤖 2
Avatar
something to think about is how ArK has a selcted number of delegates "Block producers" that have to be voted for by the community. each BP needs to state why he/it/them/shim should be a BP
11:53
what hardware they have and how it will benifit the future growth of the network
👍 1
Avatar
There's a para2 now
👋 1
11:54
Are you para1's son? 😂
Avatar
Taylor Swift 02/11/2021 11:55 AM
does the number of validators matter when we hit say, 100k hotspots?
11:55
like is there a certain number of validators that helium needs or is it arbitrary lol
Avatar
not really
Avatar
@Taylor Swift will start with 100
Avatar
Instead of an arbitrary 10k... What about 0.01% of circulating HNT. This puts a % of ownership aspect to the staking and will increase over time. That would be ~7310 hnt today.
Avatar
as the number of hotspots grows, the CPU usage will likely increase
11:56
but that should be modest
Avatar
Avatar
filoozom
Are you para1's son? 😂
sort of, i'm an advanced AI that my "father", para1, developed using his own messages on this Discord server as training data. so in a way, i'm him, but not him
Avatar
@para2 like paraception
Avatar
Avatar
para2
sort of, i'm an advanced AI that my "father", para1, developed using his own messages on this Discord server as training data. so in a way, i'm him, but not him
Damn, you really can't leave this Discord for a few days without something revolutionary happening...
Avatar
Avatar
Funkyanimal
Instead of an arbitrary 10k... What about 0.01% of circulating HNT. This puts a % of ownership aspect to the staking and will increase over time. That would be ~7310 hnt today.
Don’t hate this idea
☝️ 1
👆 2
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Don’t hate this idea
Once you fall below 0.01% ownership... You fall out of consensus pool.
👍 1
Avatar
So you have to keep rebuying HNT ?
Avatar
Taylor Swift 02/11/2021 11:59 AM
maybe every 5 months lol
Avatar
just leave earnings in the stake to keep pace?
Avatar
@Scooby you would be 1/1xx in consensus so probably 1 a year
12:01
i think there should be a set limit of validators at a given time thats voted for
Avatar
assuming CG size of 100, CG rewards will be enough to keep or grow your % of circulation ownership as long as validator pool size is <60k nvm, that math is actually more complex than i originally thought (edited)
Avatar
Taylor Swift 02/11/2021 12:01 PM
but that makes it competitive though
Avatar
proof of stake, hotspot owners can delegate their hnt to 1/ of the voted BP
12:03
each BP validaotr w/e you wanna call em can set its pool fees
Avatar
so Im not sure if I overlooked it, but, in its current proposal, 10k gets you 1 validator? What if you want to stake 13k. Can you have a validator that gets 1.3 times the rewards ? (edited)
Avatar
no overstaking
Avatar
ah thats what overstaking means 😛
Avatar
save up for the second validator at 20k
Avatar
gotcha, thanks
Avatar
anyone know what the monthly cost would be on AWS for running a node?
12:22
like a ballpark
Avatar
Avatar
Lymph
anyone know what the monthly cost would be on AWS for running a node?
Well, they say you'd need a t2 large or xlarge
12:24
EC2 instance types comprise of varying combinations of CPU, memory, storage, and networking capacity. This gives you the flexibility to choose an instance that best meets your needs.
12:25
So: t2.large 2 Variable 8 GiB EBS Only $0.0928 per Hour t2.xlarge 4 Variable 16 GiB EBS Only $0.1856 per Hour
12:26
So I guess 66 - 133 US$ / month?
Avatar
interesting, thanks
Avatar
But shouldn't be too big of a problem considering the 10k HNT cost 41.3k$ right now
👆 1
Avatar
cheaper if you're buying 1 or 3 year reserved instances 😉
👍 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 12:30 PM
is there any reason why the chart used for expected ROI starts scaling down at 1M?
12:30
that seems kind of high. granted total network supply is only 223M
12:31
this one
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
is there any reason why the chart used for expected ROI starts scaling down at 1M?
it is expected that they'll start with a CG size of 100, so min validator pool size would be 100. 100 x 10K = 1M
🤔 1
Avatar
10k staked HNT per validator, 100 validators, 1M HNT
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 12:32 PM
so if we assume everyone optimizes at 1M stake per validator that is only 223 validators. still not bad, but thought we were targeting in the 1000s
12:33
ah, so it could be reduced? like a chainvar likely?
Avatar
What if we want to participate, but do not have the stake of 10K tokens. Can we pool or get in for cheaper somehow?
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
so if we assume everyone optimizes at 1M stake per validator that is only 223 validators. still not bad, but thought we were targeting in the 1000s
total staked, not per stake
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
10k staked HNT per validator, 100 validators, 1M HNT
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 12:33 PM
10K is the min entry. looks like based on my read of this chart anything between 10K and 1M is at the 360% return
Avatar
Avatar
moses4997
What if we want to participate, but do not have the stake of 10K tokens. Can we pool or get in for cheaper somehow?
nothing is stopping you from pooling with other people
Avatar
Avatar
moses4997
What if we want to participate, but do not have the stake of 10K tokens. Can we pool or get in for cheaper somehow?
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 12:34 PM
staking pools as a service will exist
Avatar
How would one pool tokens to reach this? Any documentation on this, or not out yet?
Avatar
They are aiming to launch with 100 validators, so 1M HNT staked in total.
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 12:34 PM
Hoping to offer one as part of our hosting biz
Avatar
the x-axis on the chart is total HNT staked in the entire network
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
para2
total staked, not per stake
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 12:35 PM
can you explain this? do you mean validators will all be tied to a single wallet/account?
12:35
so if you had say 10 validators it would be the combined stake between all 10?
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
the x-axis on the chart is total HNT staked in the entire network
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 12:35 PM
ohhhhh ok awesome
12:36
so like other PoS chains
👍 1
12:36
nice 👍
12:36
so it's liquidity responsive...awesome
Avatar
so as more people decide to validate on the network, total staked goes up -> fewer mining rewards per staked HNT
👍 1
12:37
so early validators will get the most HNT
Avatar
whats the general fee that SaaS providers take ?
Avatar
right now, there are only ~600 wallet addresses with 10k or more HNT
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
right now, there are only ~600 wallet addresses with 10k or more HNT
601 now
🤣 1
👏 1
12:38
lol
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
so as more people decide to validate on the network, total staked goes up -> fewer mining rewards per staked HNT
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 12:38 PM
yep I remember staking with ICON worked (works) like this (edited)
12:38
elegant af. lol
Avatar
i have had the original helium OG devices
12:38
lol cant wait for this
12:39
when can u start hosting them btw?
12:39
the validators
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
so early validators will get the most HNT
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 12:39 PM
not only ....but with higher % of the network staked there is deflationary pressure on the token
Avatar
Avatar
ainzsama
when can u start hosting them btw?
testnet isn't even launched yet
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
not only ....but with higher % of the network staked there is deflationary pressure on the token
brrrrrrrrrrr
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 12:40 PM
and with lower % there is inflationary I believe as it becomes more profitable to lock your tokens
Avatar
even if all 600 get 1 validator thats still 60% a year. Yes please
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 12:40 PM
..not sure on the terminology there but pretty sure the gist is sound lol
Avatar
how are the BP keys stored safely in aws ?? will the BP need to have a "relay node" infront of BP and have offline "cold key files" that are updated every 3 months
Avatar
any clue when the testnet will run?
Avatar
Avatar
Boxxy
how are the BP keys stored safely in aws ?? will the BP need to have a "relay node" infront of BP and have offline "cold key files" that are updated every 3 months
having BP directly connected to a static ip is not good, multiple relay nodes that the BP connects to might be a good idea
Avatar
Avatar
ainzsama
any clue when the testnet will run?
hopefully this week 😉
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
hopefully this week 😉
🙄
😬 1
😂 2
Avatar
Avatar
Boxxy
having BP directly connected to a static ip is not good, multiple relay nodes that the BP connects to might be a good idea
stake can be transferred in the case that keys are compromised. the owner's wallet that a validator is associated to is not needed on the validator node. it can be stored offline
Avatar
helpfullfox178 02/11/2021 1:02 PM
Are there any current stake pools
13:02
How would a stake pool work
Avatar
Avatar
Boxxy
how are the BP keys stored safely in aws ?? will the BP need to have a "relay node" infront of BP and have offline "cold key files" that are updated every 3 months
They’re not
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
this one
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 1:14 PM
ok so kinda confused on something -- [in the FAQ] it says no overstake to begin with (which I understand was known from past discussions), but now realizing that doesn't seem to mesh with the chart mentioned above (edited)
13:14
is the chart a projection when overstake is added or am I conflating "overstake" with whatever the chart is describing?
Avatar
overstake -> more than 10k staked in 1 validator chart -> total HNT staked with ALL validators on network
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
is the chart a projection when overstake is added or am I conflating "overstake" with whatever the chart is describing?
Sheet1 # of validators,total staked,HNT earned / mo / validator,HNT earned / yr / validator,validator annualized return 10,100,000,30,000,360,000,3600% 20,200,000,15,000,180,000,1800% 30,300,000,10,000,120,000,1200% 40,400,000,7,500,90,000,900% 50,500,000,6,000,72,000,720% 60,600,000,5,000,60,00...
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 1:18 PM
so I'm confused then it seems like what is meant by "overstake" -- I was taking it to mean any stake over the minimum required 10K
13:19
but that spreadsheet you linked @Scooby appears to suggest there is just a flat 10K stake per validator and then that's it (for now)?
Avatar
correct
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
so I'm confused then it seems like what is meant by "overstake" -- I was taking it to mean any stake over the minimum required 10K
you're reading the chart wrong
Avatar
found that sheet in a pin somewhere
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 1:20 PM
what I'm struggling to wrap my head around is the connection between how many validators and how much you stake/earn
Avatar
it's 10k per stake, if 1M total stake, there are 100 validators. at 5M, there are 500, 10M, there are 1000, etc etc (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 1:20 PM
it seems like that's at the heart of "v1" and "v2" of validators (no overstake vs overstake)
13:21
so then it's as many validators as you want at a flat 10K stake, and then the % ROI is a function of the total network staked? (i.e. all validators stake combined) (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Absolutely insteresting but if you wanna run a validator in EU i think you have to put money out of the pocket and buy HNT somewhere. I don't know how many EU wallet hold more than 10K
Avatar
Carl-bot BOT 02/11/2021 1:22 PM
No discussions on buying or selling HNT please!
🙄 1
😆 2
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
so then it's as many validators as you want at a flat 10K stake, and then the % ROI is a function of the total network staked? (i.e. all validators stake combined) (edited)
yes, but estimated
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
para2
yes, but estimated
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 1:22 PM
yeah I understand it's not to the T just going for the macro understanding
Avatar
depends on how lucky/unlucky you are getting elected into GC. same process as now for hotspots, but it'll be for validators only
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 1:23 PM
yep 👍
13:23
but by the existing logic in theory the more validators you run the better your chance (based on my interpretation / understanding) (edited)
13:23
so it's almost like a pseduo overstake
Avatar
smaller pool and bigger group, so we should see less variance
Avatar
Avatar
MP
Absolutely insteresting but if you wanna run a validator in EU i think you have to put money out of the pocket and buy HNT somewhere. I don't know how many EU wallet hold more than 10K
you can run "from US" on a virtual server hosted in EU, not sure if there are tax considerations though...
Avatar
Avatar
para2
you can run "from US" on a virtual server hosted in EU, not sure if there are tax considerations though...
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 1:24 PM
I was going to ask about this as well....are we encouraged/discouraged to do that? (edited)
Avatar
currently, there are no incentives to have geo-diverse validators, but from a network security standpoint, we should
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 1:25 PM
I'd think that we'd just want to onboard any new validators to the geo with the least support so we are always supplementing weaker distribution
13:25
that would be a bit more involved though as far as governing that process.
Avatar
Avatar
para2
currently, there are no incentives to have geo-diverse validators, but from a network security standpoint, we should
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 1:25 PM
yeah exactly
Avatar
Avatar
para2
you can run "from US" on a virtual server hosted in EU, not sure if there are tax considerations though...
Sorry i wasn't clear. I'm in EU and thinkig to be a validator means get HNT somewhere because we started later to mine
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
MP
Sorry i wasn't clear. I'm in EU and thinkig to be a validator means get HNT somewhere because we started later to mine
ah, i see
Avatar
Avatar
MP
Sorry i wasn't clear. I'm in EU and thinkig to be a validator means get HNT somewhere because we started later to mine
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 1:26 PM
pretty sure that's probably factoring into the recent runup but this borders on what we're allowed to talk about here. 🙂
Avatar
Sorry, was just a consideration on the staking amount
Avatar
I think i've been banned on this channel because of the "forbidden" word
Avatar
nodle?
Avatar
Carl-bot BOT 02/11/2021 1:32 PM
cool story
Avatar
Avatar
MP
Sorry, was just a consideration on the staking amount
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 1:32 PM
no worries you're within bounds just not supposed to discuss buying/selling
13:32
it naturally comes up around discussions about economics
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
Wireguard makes things way easier to run a VPN tunnel. This is a pretty good idea if you're worried about shady ISP filtering or just connectivity issues.
would you have a dialable IP with this route tho? cc: @neema.eth
Avatar
Avatar
olb1ue
would you have a dialable IP with this route tho? cc: @neema.eth
it would likely require some work but yes.
☝️ 1
Avatar
Hi all - im very new to participating in something like this so excuse the ignorance. If i just have a new macbook pro, is that enough to stake? Is there a way to do it through cloud? Or would i need to buy a powerful machine
13:35
im very interested
13:36
even reading the documentation is a bit confusing to me as a noob
Avatar
ah i see so doing it from home isnt possible
Avatar
Avatar
samlew
ah i see so doing it from home isnt possible
possible, not recommended for most
Avatar
but i guess my question - if u set up something with aws u could?
Avatar
so my home internet is 1 gig up and 1 gig down, with static ip, but i live in a area with power outages for maybe 2-4 days a year. I would be interested in running my validator locally since i have some nice connections and computers. Will i be slashed if my validator goes offline or will i just miss the rewards for that period? (edited)
Avatar
or is it people involved with like data centers. i guess the whole thing just confuses me
Avatar
Avatar
yrral
so my home internet is 1 gig up and 1 gig down, with static ip, but i live in a area with power outages for maybe 2-4 days a year. I would be interested in running my validator locally since i have some nice connections and computers. Will i be slashed if my validator goes offline or will i just miss the rewards for that period? (edited)
no slashing on initial release
☑️ 1
Avatar
i dont plan to sell at all no matter what this cycle so id love to get involved
🚀 1
Avatar
@yrral no slashing as yet
Avatar
prefect, thanks
Avatar
said another way - where are people getting this sufficient internet connectoin in general?
Avatar
Avatar
samlew
but i guess my question - if u set up something with aws u could?
yes, aws possible
Avatar
Avatar
samlew
i dont plan to sell at all no matter what this cycle so id love to get involved
same here. My current plan is to hire a dev to set it up for me
Avatar
Avatar
Scooby
same here. My current plan is to hire a dev to set it up for me
interesting - lmk how that goes!
Avatar
and say i want to run 3 validators, that would require 3 instances to be running? No way to delegate your stake like solana?
Avatar
Avatar
Scooby
same here. My current plan is to hire a dev to set it up for me
i hope you really trust him/her, you'll most likely need to give him the keys to your 10k hnt stake (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
yrral
and say i want to run 3 validators, that would require 3 instances to be running? No way to delegate your stake like solana?
1 instance per stake, hopefully some 3rd party stake facilities will come online soon
Avatar
basically what im hearing is that if you aren't developer savvy this is tough to do
Avatar
Avatar
para2
i hope you really trust him/her, you'll most likely need to give him the keys to your 10k hnt stake (edited)
are there isnt a way around that ?
Avatar
wait... is it really 10k HNT to stake?
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
wait... is it really 10k HNT to stake?
yes
Avatar
so regarding "how can I get a sufficient setup outside of the cloud?" * At home, you could be sufficient with a good battery backup UPS and a redundant ISP. * There are small co-lo companies everywhere that let you rent server rack space and they provide redundant power, cooling, and internet.
Avatar
Avatar
Scooby
are there isnt a way around that ?
maybe, still waiting on details on the staking part
Avatar
oh so if i can figure out how to set up AWS
13:42
then i can do it?
Avatar
"peoples network"
😹 2
13:42
$40k to stake
Avatar
my life is on repeat today
🤣 1
Avatar
hahaha round 2 !
facepalm 2
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
"peoples network"
some people have been mining for that long 😉
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
"peoples network"
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 1:42 PM
lmao it probably says something that this is even getting stale for me 😂
💯 1
Avatar
hahahaha
13:43
sorry, staking is really confusing to us non tech savy people
Avatar
Avatar
samlew
sorry, staking is really confusing to us non tech savy people
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 1:43 PM
don't worry about it 👍
Avatar
JFC
😂 5
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
some people have been mining for that long 😉
ive been mining with 4 HS since 6k hotspots on the network and still not there
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
JFC
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 1:43 PM
told you
Avatar
Love people rolling in with the fresh hot takes
🤣 1
😆 1
☠️ 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 1:44 PM
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Love people rolling in with the fresh hot takes
I mean its a pretty big change to the network
Avatar
tbh technical jargon in a HIP doesn't make it easier for a lot of us who have never used aws
13:44
guess i got some learning to do!
Avatar
Avatar
para2
maybe, still waiting on details on the staking part
Really hope something like this is possible otherwise ill just have to wait for staking pools I suppose
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
I mean its a pretty big change to the network
That’s been discussed ad nauseum if you want to read first
Avatar
@Boxxy and @Sam should get together and pool their HNT
🤭 1
😆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
I mean its a pretty big change to the network
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 1:44 PM
with all due respect and trust me I feel you here, I have been advocating that for a bit, you are late to the party and not by far the first to bring it up and hash it out lol
13:45
just as context for the reaction lol
Avatar
Avatar
samlew
tbh technical jargon in a HIP doesn't make it easier for a lot of us who have never used aws
don't have specifics but i've seen a few folks in the sign up list state that they are staking providers so i suspect that folks who are less technically inclined will be able to participate.
Avatar
I mean we built the initial system that made it as fair as humanly possible. Now it’s at a tipping point. We did not arrive here lightly and it’s been discussed at great length
Avatar
we need a video that ppl have to watch before allowed to post in this channel, something like in "50 first dates". must watch when you wake up before you start your day
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
don't have specifics but i've seen a few folks in the sign up list state that they are staking providers so i suspect that folks who are less technically inclined will be able to participate.
thats great to hear
Avatar
To just come in with the “lol people’s network 10k” is just amateur hour
Avatar
I never had used AWS before setting up a DIY, wasn't that hard and great for the learning experience alone.
Avatar
but cap, the hot takes. i have all these hot takes to give.
Avatar
Avatar
E R I K
I never had used AWS before setting up a DIY, wasn't that hard and great for the learning experience alone.
i love this.
Avatar
agreed a youtube video of setup
13:46
would be money
13:46
maybe it exists lol
Avatar
BOOM!
13:47
thank you sir
👋 1
13:48
staking a no brainer
💯 1
Avatar
"peoples netowrk" is the new "can I mine hnt with diy???"
😀 2
Avatar
I get it, truly. We made it work almost by magic for so long
whiskey 1
Avatar
@para2 will said video say peoples network ?
😂 1
Avatar
whats the estimated number of stakers needed for a stable network?
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
whats the estimated number of stakers needed for a stable network?
target min of 100, expecting "large" number (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
whats the estimated number of stakers needed for a stable network?
I’d say you want as many as possible, at least 100. Based on the response so far I’d say thousands is not impossible this year
👍 2
helium 1
Avatar
10k doesn't seem like an irrational number to stake to me. you need large holders that feels like the whole point
Avatar
what are the projections for # of validators EOY ?
13:50
if there are any.. 🙂
13:50
ah nvm you answered just a few secs before haha
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
I’d say you want as many as possible, at least 100. Based on the response so far I’d say thousands is not impossible this year
makes sense, will the rewards to stakers scale depending on how many there are?
Avatar
Avatar
samlew
10k doesn't seem like an irrational number to stake to me. you need large holders that feels like the whole point
Avatar
@capcom if thousands this year price of hnt might be on the peoples moon and i can retire
🚀 1
🌕 1
Avatar
The point of the large stake amounts is to make it prohibitively expensive for attackers to try and dominate the pool. The more it costs and the larger the % of the circulating supply the harder it is for that to happen
Avatar
exactly
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
makes sense, will the rewards to stakers scale depending on how many there are?
It’s a fixed pool that (effectively) gets divided by the number of stakers
Avatar
Avatar
samlew
10k doesn't seem like an irrational number to stake to me. you need large holders that feels like the whole point
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 1:52 PM
I think it's recent market moves making people anxious. without going into too much detail there (per rules)
13:52
that said, there's counterpoints there. again not trying to rehash [those points are in the backscroll]. (edited)
Avatar
Imo you want to think in circulating supply terms not USD amounts, it gets hard to acquire all the circulating supply to attack. But appreciate that the USD costs are getting very high
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
It’s a fixed pool that (effectively) gets divided by the number of stakers
I see. I'm watching the HIPs dont lie now so I think that will clear some stuff up for me
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Imo you want to think in circulating supply terms not USD amounts, it gets hard to acquire all the circulating supply to attack. But appreciate that the USD costs are getting very high
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 1:54 PM
doesn't help USD is getting progressively weaker as we speak due to general economic headwinds
Avatar
it kinda makes sense to have it be a high number of HNT to stake
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
doesn't help USD is getting progressively weaker as we speak due to general economic headwinds
Certainly agree
Avatar
but, "people's network" Troll
😆 1
Avatar
right, people are being taken aback by the $40k number, but just a couple of months ago, it was under $10k 😉
Avatar
staking is such a small part of rewards
Avatar
small ??
Avatar
there is no other path than this imo
Avatar
should be 50k hnt
13:55
😂
Avatar
Avatar
Scooby
small ??
6%
Avatar
ohhh yea
Avatar
PoC is like 8-10x more
Avatar
relatively small
Avatar
i was thinking more in terms of ROI on staked amount
Avatar
Who gets the $40k stake?
Avatar
all that matters for everyone is that this whole thing works
13:56
this is the best path
Avatar
Avatar
PT
Who gets the $40k stake?
it's just locked up, you still get it back
Avatar
Avatar
PT
Who gets the $40k stake?
your 10k HNT stake is locked in the network
13:56
you get it back in 5 months
Avatar
Avatar
PT
Who gets the $40k stake?
It is sent directly to the CEO of Helium Inc
whiskey 1
Troll 7
🤣 5
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
your 10k HNT stake is locked in the network
Avatar
Avatar
Scooby
Click to see attachment 🖼️
13NLAgDkP6rwrWjmZrohM3MB3tpky5tfwcuirE8sKN9sU4eZLgG
Avatar
hahahaha
Avatar
The validators are getting that 6% which was originally from the consensus group, yeah?
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
The validators are getting that 6% which was originally from the consensus group, yeah?
correct
Avatar
Why set up a stake that just gets returned in 5 months?
Avatar
ok and when you spend the 10k hnt, can you get it back if you dont want to be a validator anymore?
Avatar
Hey all, my friends and I are very interested in running a validator. Is a stable IP a requirement because some piece of the validator software cannot use DNS, or would a potentially non-static IP with a stable, publicly resolvable FQDN that is kept up to date via dynamic DNS updates be an acceptable option? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
ok and when you spend the 10k hnt, can you get it back if you dont want to be a validator anymore?
yes, after 5 months
Avatar
Avatar
krobzaur
Hey all, my friends and I are very interested in running a validator. Is a stable IP a requirement because some piece of the validator software cannot use DNS, or would a potentially non-static IP with a stable, publicly resolvable FQDN that is kept up to date via dynamic DNS updates be an acceptable option? (edited)
Avatar
I see. are there people staking now or has it not been activated on the chain yet?
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
I see. are there people staking now or has it not been activated on the chain yet?
no, the "validators" HIP-25 isn't active yet. The testnet for this isn't online yet.
Avatar
Not trying to be rude, but I'm not entirely sure how that article is relevant to my question
14:03
Unless you're suggesting I use some low powered node with a static public IP as some sort of proxy for my validator
Avatar
Correct. Low-powered cloud node that's just a proxy, you setup a wireguard tunnel between your home server and the proxy server.
14:04
However, getting all of that working is very technical. It would be easier to just setup a cloud validator instead of a home validator.
Avatar
when HIP-25 goes live, are the number of validators going to be capped to 100 or is that just the minimum?
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
when HIP-25 goes live, are the number of validators going to be capped to 100 or is that just the minimum?
no cap, just min
Avatar
anyone with 10k HNT can be a validator. It IS the people's network after all
👍 2
Avatar
I see, are there any estimates of how many people are going to stake at the beginning?
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
para2
last time i checked, majority agreed with you that minimum should be higher. just checked the poll again, looks like majority thinks 10k is reasonable https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/798317614879342622/805838338363490354 (edited)
10k is reasonable, but the minimum of 1 mill is not.
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
anyone with 10k HNT can be a validator. It IS the people's network after all
How dare you
Troll 1
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
I see, are there any estimates of how many people are going to stake at the beginning?
there is a FAQ in the document
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
I see, are there any estimates of how many people are going to stake at the beginning?
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
Correct. Low-powered cloud node that's just a proxy, you setup a wireguard tunnel between your home server and the proxy server.
Ah, this is an interesting thought. I already have a mesh VPN setup for all my disparate private networks using tinc, with a small hub node for the VPN running in AWS. So all I would really need to do is configure nginx on that hub node
Avatar
Avatar
Rafikiwi
10k is reasonable, but the minimum of 1 mill is not.
It’s the total pool being 1M not per person
Avatar
Avatar
Rafikiwi
10k is reasonable, but the minimum of 1 mill is not.
1M number refers to 100 independent validators on the network with 10k staked each
Avatar
Avatar
krobzaur
Ah, this is an interesting thought. I already have a mesh VPN setup for all my disparate private networks using tinc, with a small hub node for the VPN running in AWS. So all I would really need to do is configure nginx on that hub node
I don't think you could use nginx because it's not HTTP traffic, a bit more technical than that.
Avatar
how hard is it to run the validator software? like is it just a docker container to spin up on aws?
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
I don't think you could use nginx because it's not HTTP traffic, a bit more technical than that.
Right right, just a generic reverse proxy then. I think they mention rinetd in the article. But I think this is entering the realm of topologies the HIP is trying to avoid, no?
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
how hard is it to run the validator software? like is it just a docker container to spin up on aws?
pretty much
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
It’s the total pool being 1M not per person
But technically one person could put up a million hnt and get control, right?
Avatar
I'd much rather (and it would also be simpler) to just expose ports directly to the internet on publicly resolvable FQDN, my question is more about whether or not it matters that the underlying IP address wouldn't be static.
Avatar
Does anyone have a link to the HNT staking returns spreadsheet?
Avatar
Avatar
Rafikiwi
But technically one person could put up a million hnt and get control, right?
There’s no cap so you only have control if you have the majority of the nodes
Avatar
that they talked about in the HIPs dont lie yt video
Avatar
currently 0.5 mill hnt
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
There’s no cap so you only have control if you have the majority of the nodes
right
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
There’s no cap so you only have control if you have the majority of the nodes
isn't it 2/3 of nodes?
Avatar
1M HNT would likely not get you very far
Avatar
Avatar
para2
isn't it 2/3 of nodes?
That’s probably right
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
1M HNT would likely not get you very far
if there will be a lot of validators
14:11
I hope you are right
14:11
and there will be
Avatar
There should be until the returns don’t make sense to add more
Avatar
otherwise i find this solution a bit risky for the network
Avatar
It’s not a new idea, there are dozens of proof of stake networks out there
👆 1
👍 1
Avatar
no more risky than someone buying all of the hotspots 😉
Avatar
Ethereum is moving to the same model, etc
💯 2
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Ethereum is moving to the same model, etc
well they were until the miners got angry lol
Avatar
yea this is not new
Avatar
it makes a lot more sense for the helium network than ETH imo
14:13
Good list
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
It’s not a new idea, there are dozens of proof of stake networks out there
I understand pos. The problem is the 1 mill 😄 POS is great, but we have seen quite a lot of 51% attacks.
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
no more risky than someone buying all of the hotspots 😉
u gotta deploy them etc... thats a bad agument 😄
Avatar
Avatar
Rafikiwi
I understand pos. The problem is the 1 mill 😄 POS is great, but we have seen quite a lot of 51% attacks.
You’ve lost me on the 1 mil. That’s the minimum before the network switches over
14:14
There is no maximum
Avatar
I understand that!
14:14
but do you have any proof that people will want to participate?
🥷 1
14:15
not 100 people
Avatar
but 2-3-5 hundred
Avatar
when is the chain variable expected to be activated to put 25 into main net?
Avatar
response != actual intent, but still, there's a good amount of interest
trescommas 1
Avatar
getya
14:15
excitiing
Avatar
Avatar
Rafikiwi
but do you have any proof that people will want to participate?
Yes, also why wouldn’t you deposit 10k to earn X% if you have it?
Avatar
nah i see the point complitely
14:15
im considering it too
Avatar
You know what to do
Avatar
Avatar
Rafikiwi
im considering it too
come join the dark side, the non-people side (edited)
😝 1
👀 1
🤖 1
Avatar
but technically the possibility is there
Avatar
not the sasme
14:16
as brute chain takeover
Avatar
right, but no more possible than any other 50%+ attack on any other cryptocurrency
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
right, but no more possible than any other 50%+ attack on any other cryptocurrency
not true. Larger cap coins have lower risks. 4 million (or 2 million and 1 USD is not much at all)
14:17
but anyhow
14:17
just came by to ask and learn
14:17
not to go nuts on this
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
when is the chain variable expected to be activated to put 25 into main net?
Sometime after at least 100 validators are running and before the chain grinds to a halt from not being able to produce blocks hopefully. Honestly not sure yet. Entirely dependent on how the testnet process goes. (edited)
receive 1
Avatar
Im grateful for the answers
Avatar
I mean perhaps the minimum should be higher? It’s not a bad idea at all
🙅‍♂️ 1
Avatar
50k seems right
Avatar
I mean for activation
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
I mean perhaps the minimum should be higher? It’s not a bad idea at all
Exactly my point
Avatar
So 500 validators instead of 100
🙉 1
Avatar
indeed
Avatar
Or whatever number
Avatar
absolutely
14:18
that is my point
👍 1
👎 1
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
Sometime after at least 100 validators are running and before the chain grinds to a halt from not being able to produce blocks hopefully. Honestly not sure yet. Entirely dependent on how the testnet process goes. (edited)
ok makes sense. can I (or someone) test making a validator node on the testnet without spending any real HNT? I would just want to be sure my AWS skills are good enough before spending 10k HNT lol
Avatar
Definitely. Testnet will be free to use and we'll be airdropping fake tokens for it.
Avatar
Thanks for listening @capcom
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
Definitely. Testnet will be free to use and we'll be airdropping fake tokens for it.
how can i participate?
Avatar
yup no worries, thanks for the input
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
Definitely. Testnet will be free to use and we'll be airdropping fake tokens for it.
ok awesome, I filled out the form so hopefully I get selected
Avatar
@Rafikiwi sign up on helium.com/stake and keep apprised of details.
Avatar
thanks
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
Definitely. Testnet will be free to use and we'll be airdropping fake tokens for it.
Might as well airdrop genuine ones 😏
🤞 1
🙌 1
Avatar
we should t urn off the 60s blocktime on the testnet for fun
14:19
see how fast it can go
❤️ 2
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
ok awesome, I filled out the form so hopefully I get selected
there won't be any "selection" per se. If you build it or pay someone else to build it, you can do it.
Avatar
@capcom I had planned on 10s blocks
14:19
10 epoch elections
Avatar
great minds
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
we should t urn off the 60s blocktime on the testnet for fun
yeah let it fly.
❤️ 2
Avatar
thrash the shit out of everything
Avatar
i think we had it down to 2-3s on an old testnet once
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
I mean perhaps the minimum should be higher? It’s not a bad idea at all
Avatar
lol, is that to stress test the required instance sizes?
Avatar
t2.large is more preferred than t3.large?
Avatar
we can also test larger CGs and the like.
Avatar
not that value, the activation value. so 500 validators instead of 100 for example
Avatar
oh i see.
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
there won't be any "selection" per se. If you build it or pay someone else to build it, you can do it.
yes but for the testnet there will be a selection, right?
Avatar
Looks like I'll have to free the 64 core server
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
lol, is that to stress test the required instance sizes?
just to see how things go, really
14:21
remember that all this is chain vars
Avatar
Avatar
linagee
t2.large is more preferred than t3.large?
I've got a m6g.xlarge on standby for testnet. We'll learn as we go
Avatar
Avatar
linagee
t2.large is more preferred than t3.large?
just an example, t3 wasn't on the chart I looked at
Avatar
Avatar
evan
remember that all this is chain vars
right, but wouldn't those chain vars cause more CPU stress on the validators?
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
right, but wouldn't those chain vars cause more CPU stress on the validators?
I just meant that I'll likely try a number of settings
💯 1
Avatar
T's can be a problem when hitting peak load for a longer period of time.
Avatar
towards the end we'll pre-stress at normal chain speeds to see how we can scale the group
🆗 1
👍 1
Avatar
@noyolo ah yes, you are bringing my memory back. Especially on the initial sync. 😄 (edited)
Avatar
I would very much like to be involved in the testnet 😺 (as you’ve probably gathered over the past few weeks)
patron 1
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
I would very much like to be involved in the testnet 😺 (as you’ve probably gathered over the past few weeks)
make sure to sign up here: https://www.helium.com/stake (if you haven't already) (edited)
Avatar
Oh I did
👍 1
Avatar
I've always been burned by burstable instance types. You would hate to be kicked out of the consensus group because you used all of your CPU credits 😉
Avatar
I'd like to be involved but I can't stake, but happy to develop fault-proof terraform templates. ( happen to be an AWS Architect )
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
yes but for the testnet there will be a selection, right?
i don't think we have any plan on limiting who can join the testnet either. It'll just be limited to the number of people we can project manage 😛 small team also building while we run this.
14:24
when people hit trouble, it'll probably be a learning experience for all of us.
Avatar
No way to put your discord handle in there or that you plan on staking one initially, but potentially many more
Avatar
good point on discord handle, @Bertie
Avatar
Ive got a great idea for an Emrit style business model for validators. All you need is an location (an AWS or physical server) and I will supply the docker image for free, and you can keep 20% of your earnings.
😬 3
😹 1
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
i don't think we have any plan on limiting who can join the testnet either. It'll just be limited to the number of people we can project manage 😛 small team also building while we run this.
yeah that makes sense, def hit me up if you need more people. I've got pretty good experience with AWS and docker partyparrot
Avatar
@cyborg ^ should we add discord handle to the form?
🤔 1
Avatar
@hashc0de do you know where that spreadsheet they talked about in this video is? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOEAxXaANkI
14:26
I'm just trying to find the break even point for AWS prices
Avatar
i think it's one someone in the community shared.
14:26
check pins 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
I'm just trying to find the break even point for AWS prices
it'll be <$200/mo for the virtual server needed
Avatar
oh yeah thats it ty
14:27
t2 large looks like $41/mo
14:27
or $20 + 240 up front
Avatar
yea compared to most PoS networks the hardware requirements here are quite minimal (edited)
Avatar
Do not all host on AWS though or it will be kind of centralized
👆 2
trescommas 1
Avatar
no GPU farm needed here. but agree with filoozom
Avatar
Avatar
filoozom
Do not all host on AWS though or it will be kind of centralized
if all in the same availability zones, yes.
👍 1
Avatar
There are multiple server regions
14:28
As everyone said 😹
Avatar
AWS has had global outages before 😉
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
noyolo
if all in the same availability zones, yes.
Well even if not, it's all controller by Amazon, so still centralized in that sense
Avatar
if everyone shoves into us-east-1, it'll be super sad heh
Avatar
whats the estimated traffic requirements (like network speed)? I have some servers at home but not sure if my network would be up to the task
Avatar
Avatar
filoozom
Well even if not, it's all controller by Amazon, so still centralized in that sense
you have no clue enough about AWS
😲 1
14:28
sorry
14:28
🙂
Avatar
Not like they're about to close but still
Avatar
also good excuse to buy another server to fill up the rack lol
Avatar
I think Iowa is cheapest atm
Avatar
at least we're not all hosting on Azure, that would be bad
😂 1
Avatar
aws is expensive
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
whats the estimated traffic requirements (like network speed)? I have some servers at home but not sure if my network would be up to the task
It will run the same image as the hotspots initially so under 50G
Avatar
much cheaper ones out there
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
You’ve lost me on the 1 mil. That’s the minimum before the network switches over
Similar to Eth 2.0 requirements
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
It will run the same image as the hotspots initially so under 50G
wait does that mean 50GB/s?
Avatar
I could convert my RAK pilot gateway to a validator if needed
😫 1
Avatar
like I get 100+ down and like 20 up but I could upgrade to 1GBps
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
wait does that mean 50GB/s?
50GB a month
Avatar
oh so very little at any given time
👍 1
14:31
I guess I can try selfhosting on the testnet when that comes online and see if it works
Avatar
(Jk I plan on t2.xlarge)
Avatar
regardless of how long you stake, you can get your 10k HNT back, right?
👍 1
14:37
you just wont get it back till 5 months later
Avatar
that's 5 months after you unstake, not 5 months after initial stake
👆 1
14:39
is there a channel yet for people that want to participate on the testnet?
Avatar
#testnet-ops for now, there might be a testnet specific channel when we stand it up and let people start joining
Avatar
Avatar
filoozom
Not like they're about to close but still
i agree. i think we're in the minority but it seems strange for a blockchain product to say it should be on aws. i'm gonna try and put it on dappnode just to give evan a headache. feels a little more distributed then
👍 3
Avatar
I'm just using AWS as a reference
Avatar
Avatar
gradoj
i agree. i think we're in the minority but it seems strange for a blockchain product to say it should be on aws. i'm gonna try and put it on dappnode just to give evan a headache. feels a little more distributed then
Thank god, at one point I really thought I "have no clue enough about AWS"
14:46
I'll definitely host it out of AWS too
Avatar
I plan to use gcloud because I like the console better (I'm really lazy)
💯 1
Avatar
Deleted User 02/11/2021 2:49 PM
I'd like to know how to use gcloud as well. Share any tips and tricks that you use when you get to it.
💯 1
Avatar
you just make an account and point and click
14:50
like I said, lazy
14:51
AWS wants you to know things
Avatar
Deleted User 02/11/2021 2:51 PM
what are the instances used there? I've seen their dashboard and it's slick (gcloud)
Avatar
wait I thought the rewards were evenly distributed to stakers. are they only given to the stakers that are in the consensus group? https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/master/0025-validators.md#q-how-quickly-will-i-receive-rewards-from-staking
Avatar
Deleted User 02/11/2021 2:52 PM
I mean, yeah...
Avatar
over time, they're distributed evenly
14:52
assuming you're up and doing the work
Avatar
oh okay and the consensus group is just randomly selected each block?
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
wait I thought the rewards were evenly distributed to stakers. are they only given to the stakers that are in the consensus group? https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/master/0025-validators.md#q-how-quickly-will-i-receive-rewards-from-staking
if it's uniformly random then that should be the same result
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
oh okay and the consensus group is just randomly selected each block?
every 30 blocks or so
Avatar
ok cool, makes sense
Avatar
what level of technical skills are you guys looking for on the testnet and will you need to stake the 10k for it? I don't have a coding background but have gotten DIYs, cloud miners, and sensors all running easily enough with some help from the community at times.
Avatar
Avatar
Chad
what level of technical skills are you guys looking for on the testnet and will you need to stake the 10k for it? I don't have a coding background but have gotten DIYs, cloud miners, and sensors all running easily enough with some help from the community at times.
if you can get and keep a DIY running in the cloud, this will be the same level of effort. testnet tokens are free, we will airdrop them to people
🥳 1
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
if you can get and keep a DIY running in the cloud, this will be the same level of effort. testnet tokens are free, we will airdrop them to people
awesome!
Avatar
i believe TNT has been proposed as the name
😂 1
💥 6
🤯 1
🦖 1
💪 1
Troll 1
Avatar
You'll have to compile helium-miner to do testnet, correct? No docker image for that? erlang stack is kicking my butt. A few dependencies solved, then more. Currently: $ make ........... ===> Unable to run pre hooks for 'compile', command 'compile' in namespace 'protobuf' not found. (I am trying against tag: 2021.02.10.4) (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
linagee
You'll have to compile helium-miner to do testnet, correct? No docker image for that? erlang stack is kicking my butt. A few dependencies solved, then more. Currently: $ make ........... ===> Unable to run pre hooks for 'compile', command 'compile' in namespace 'protobuf' not found. (I am trying against tag: 2021.02.10.4) (edited)
If you do, someone would surely provide one quite quickly
Avatar
What do you earn as a validator ?
Avatar
Avatar
BABALONI
What do you earn as a validator ?
Helium Improvement Proposals. Contribute to helium/HIP development by creating an account on GitHub.
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
i believe TNT has been proposed as the name
seems like the only natural name.
16:06
tHNT was the other idea but TNT is more 💥
Avatar
Avatar
bones
we need https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WVBEB8-wa0 to be playing when we launch it
i'll certainly be screaming "oy"
Avatar
it'll be like when we transmitted the waveform of night train over the network
❤️ 1
Avatar
Avatar
linagee
You'll have to compile helium-miner to do testnet, correct? No docker image for that? erlang stack is kicking my butt. A few dependencies solved, then more. Currently: $ make ........... ===> Unable to run pre hooks for 'compile', command 'compile' in namespace 'protobuf' not found. (I am trying against tag: 2021.02.10.4) (edited)
no docker image just yet but we're trying to bend docker and rebar to our will.
16:08
it looks like you're missing protobuf dependencies.
16:09
https://github.com/helium/miner/pull/629/files#diff-b88e4bb4b3dd360662c4e32a3c8c04edf8666f21eaeff886fc9a616f2f571200R3-R6 roughly speaking here are the deps. but this is probably way out of the depth of this channel and should be in #testnet-ops
Avatar
Quick question, to run a validator on the helium testnet, do you have to stake at this point?
👍 1
16:18
(10000K HNT, just like it will be on the mainnet eventually?)
Avatar
I have similar Qs to DGK's. Do I need the 10k HNT in my helium wallet right now? or can I transfer it later?
Avatar
Avatar
1dev
Quick question, to run a validator on the helium testnet, do you have to stake at this point?
Testers on testnet will be airdropped testing tokens: TNT.
🤣 1
Avatar
Avatar
cyborg
Testers on testnet will be airdropped testing tokens: TNT.
ah ok. Meaning fiat/non-valuable HNT I guess? (edited)
16:28
I guess fiat really isn't the right word (edited)
Avatar
meaning testing tokens just meant for testing testnet
👍 1
💯 1
🔥 1
Troll 1
Avatar
It's a token, soo if people find it valuable it would have value?
16:30
However, it's only a test token for helium so not likely going to be valuable outside of use in the testnet
Avatar
We also may blow up the testnet at any time. So bravery would be needed to trade them. Courage perhaps
yolo 2
Avatar
CourageToken
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
it looks like you're missing protobuf dependencies.
This is coming back to me, it's been a number of months. It's easier to Dockerfile build than to be in dependency hell. 🥳 I'll keep it in #testnet-ops 😄 (edited)
Avatar
@evan you have any other consideration to my thought of doing something like 1/2 rewards during the unstake period in an attempt to keep people online but still have an idea of when they'll actually leave?
Avatar
I dunno
17:44
seems complicated
Avatar
what's the upside there? i'd rather consider reducing the unbonding period from 5 months down to 3 potentially.
17:45
simpler code (no more code in fact) (edited)
Avatar
I agree that it's probably simpler to do something like that
17:46
I think the idea is to get warning, but I think that we're resilient enough to probably weather a sudden shutoff
👍 1
17:51
49 validators mean 16 can be down at any one time
Avatar
What about if you could stop the cooldown by just restaking it to the same validator?
Avatar
So during the unbonding period, there are no staking rewards?
18:11
In that case 5 months does seem pretty darn harsh
Avatar
Correct
18:14
As soon as you unstake and enter cooldown your validator is deactivated and won’t be rewarded or be elected to be rewarded.
Avatar
I’ve got a Dell PowerEdge R720xd collecting dust and haven’t a clue how to use it. Would it work as a validator?
Avatar
Will the testnet route traffic too? To console?
Avatar
Avatar
DMan
I’ve got a Dell PowerEdge R720xd collecting dust and haven’t a clue how to use it. Would it work as a validator?
Avatar
helpfullfox178 02/11/2021 6:17 PM
Is there any way I can get in on the actual mining without having to stake 10 000
Avatar
Avatar
jmarcelino
Will the testnet route traffic too? To console?
testnet focus is testing consensus group, hotspots/gateways will continue to route device traffic
Avatar
From the HIP - The number of blocks after staking when the stake is returned to the owner's account. Proposed initial value is 250,000 blocks, approximately 5 months Now, I have some questions about how the cooldown is implemented in code right now and it could be me not understanding it correctly. It seems like an atomic txn that occurs when a validator is deactivated. But it reads like current Height + cooldown = HNT to owner... but it could be different once again I need some clarification
Avatar
Avatar
helpfullfox178
Is there any way I can get in on the actual mining without having to stake 10 000
sure, deploy Hotspots and create coverage, that's where the majority of mining rewards are allocated
Avatar
Avatar
cyborg
testnet focus is testing consensus group, hotspots/gateways will continue to route device traffic
even light gateways using testnet validators? if that makes sense, maybe it doesn't
Avatar
Avatar
cyborg
sure, deploy Hotspots and create coverage, that's where the majority of mining rewards are allocated
helpfullfox178 02/11/2021 6:20 PM
I have no hotspots near me😭
Avatar
Avatar
DMan
I’ve got a Dell PowerEdge R720xd collecting dust and haven’t a clue how to use it. Would it work as a validator?
depending on how it's spec'd, it's likely overkill.
Avatar
Avatar
jmarcelino
even light gateways using testnet validators? if that makes sense, maybe it doesn't
yes will likely use testnet to test light gateways, but gateways still forwarding packets not validators
Avatar
Avatar
helpfullfox178
I have no hotspots near me😭
for now
Avatar
I have one of those sitting on my bench right now that I'm prepping for Filecoin. It's 32 vCPU + 128GB RAM of overkill for HIP 25.
Avatar
helpfullfox178 02/11/2021 6:22 PM
How will they decide which miners stay in the Consensus group
Avatar
Avatar
helpfullfox178
How will they decide which miners stay in the Consensus group
random selection
Avatar
Avatar
cyborg
yes will likely use testnet to test light gateways, but gateways still forwarding packets not validators
OK I think I got it, the routers in testnet will be same as mainnet
18:23
cheers
Avatar
Do you know if this spreadsheet takes into account the halving?
Avatar
it's pre-halving
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
From the HIP - The number of blocks after staking when the stake is returned to the owner's account. Proposed initial value is 250,000 blocks, approximately 5 months Now, I have some questions about how the cooldown is implemented in code right now and it could be me not understanding it correctly. It seems like an atomic txn that occurs when a validator is deactivated. But it reads like current Height + cooldown = HNT to owner... but it could be different once again I need some clarification
can you catch me tomorrow and we can go over it?
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
What about if you could stop the cooldown by just restaking it to the same validator?
this is the plan but I have yet to implement it
Avatar
Avatar
evan
this is the plan but I have yet to implement it
Tomorrow sounds like a plan. I’ve been going through the Erlang book you suggested almost forever ago and I’m able to follow the Erlang just not sure about the Ledger side of things and maybe I’m way in left field still with understanding the code.. thanks in advance for taking the time 👍🏻
Avatar
it's all just a bit of tricky indexing
18:39
I'm not enamored of the existing implementation, but something like it has to happen
18:42
keeping the unstake value in the record for the validator would work, but the way I did it enables partial unstaking later if we decide to go with overstake
Avatar
That’s a good point. I didn’t think about how overstake would play in..
Avatar
Avatar
cyborg
random selection
helpfullfox178 02/11/2021 6:48 PM
So not based on which of them has the best performance
Avatar
Avatar
helpfullfox178
So not based on which of them has the best performance
initial selection is random but you can be removed early for poor performance
Avatar
was peoples network said lately ?
Avatar
Avatar
cyborg
it's pre-halving
Thank you. And halving is straightforward— HNT payouts would just be half what is shown in that sheet?
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
at least we're not all hosting on Azure, that would be bad
I'm relatively new to aws and azure - curious why you think/say this. Do you mind sharing more details? Looking to learn
Avatar
Avatar
shiba
I'm relatively new to aws and azure - curious why you think/say this. Do you mind sharing more details? Looking to learn
anecdotal personal experience, I've had to deal with more outages because of Azure than outages because of AWS. Don't get me wrong, there are some nice things about Azure and it has it's place, but AWS is just a better experience, IMO.
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/11/2021 7:43 PM
Any thoughts on digital ocean here
Avatar
there great as long as you don't want any of the other hundreds of products and services the other cloud providers offer that Digital Ocean doesn't
19:52
Google Cloud is the best when it comes to Linux + K8s type stuff. Azure generally has the best Windows offerings (though AWS beat Microsoft to managed Windows Docker containers) AWS is all-around fantastic. Digital Ocean is simple and typically will beat the others in pricing.
Avatar
Assuming I stake, and put down that 10k deposit, does it make sense financially? Anyone have an estimate of profitably timeline?
Avatar
Alternating 02/11/2021 7:53 PM
does a testnet exist for HNT?
Avatar
right now, the AWS instance sizes being considered are in the ballpark of $50-150/m. Even if 5M is staked total in the network, you're going to be earning 600 HNT/m.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Alternating
does a testnet exist for HNT?
not yet not yet for validators (edited)
Avatar
assume 2000 validators for conservative estimates
Avatar
Alternating 02/11/2021 7:56 PM
everyone going the docker route for easier onboarding 😛
💯 1
19:56
nice to see.. I have proposed this many times on other projects
Avatar
Do you get the 10k back after the cool down period, assuming you decide to shut down?
Avatar
yes, but no rewards during cool down
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
evan
assume 2000 validators for conservative estimates
assuming 2000 validators, pre-halvening, expect ~150 HNT/m
👍 1
Avatar
Alternating 02/11/2021 7:57 PM
are their diy Hotspot miner setups
19:57
I see a pi is hidig under the rak miner
Avatar
Interesting. Now I’m questioning the financial viability of mining.
Avatar
validator miner will be run on server-class compute, not on a Pi.
Avatar
Alternating 02/11/2021 7:58 PM
I will have to come back after I get some rest.. I like this project cause it laughs at all governments trying to control the internet 😄
Avatar
Once validators go live, it could cost like $100k to become one.
Avatar
Alternating 02/11/2021 8:00 PM
@trevor have you seen the price of an avax node?
20:00
2 btc roughly per node
20:00
any how have a good night
👍 1
Avatar
Hahaha
20:01
I have not..
20:01
Well, I just paid 1BTC for my (potential) validator.
20:03
I’ll do the validator for sure, no matter the economics.
Avatar
JoshJeXplorer 02/11/2021 8:18 PM
I read that home installations / servers are being discouraged. BUT if internet speed is the issue would a Google Fiber 1 or 2GB Down and Upload speed suffice?
Avatar
Avatar
JoshJeXplorer
I read that home installations / servers are being discouraged. BUT if internet speed is the issue would a Google Fiber 1 or 2GB Down and Upload speed suffice?
Avatar
Avatar
Alternating
everyone going the docker route for easier onboarding 😛
Do you have a link to the Docker image, by chance? Thank you.
Avatar
Hey question about the validators - is the 35% of HNT distributed to helium inc and investors monthly able to stake in this? I’ve never really asked what the rules of those tokens are (edited)
Avatar
Deleted User 02/11/2021 8:35 PM
Some of them will definitely run validators (why not?). Makes sense to do it.
Avatar
I’ve just never known if there were lock periods for those tokens. Trying to get an idea of the size of who can participate
Avatar
Any account will be allowed to stake for a validator. It’d be pretty hard to censor a particular person to do so since they can just move wallets around.
Avatar
How much of the monthly distribution of HNT is consensus anyways?
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
Any account will be allowed to stake for a validator. It’d be pretty hard to censor a particular person to do so since they can just move wallets around.
True - but you could have rules around company controlled funds
Avatar
Deleted User 02/11/2021 8:37 PM
6%. Read the HIP
Avatar
Not saying one way or the other -
Avatar
Avatar
Hedgehood
I’ve just never known if there were lock periods for those tokens. Trying to get an idea of the size of who can participate
There’s no lock because they are only earned over time like all other mining rewards. They weren’t premined like most networks
Avatar
Avatar
Hedgehood
How much of the monthly distribution of HNT is consensus anyways?
Mining and Token Rewards
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
There’s no lock because they are only earned over time like all other mining rewards. They weren’t premined like most networks
Thank ya -
20:38
Yah just never really looked T it before
Avatar
Avatar
Hedgehood
True - but you could have rules around company controlled funds
Deleted User 02/11/2021 8:38 PM
Why? I'm totally stunned that people are sometimes so harsh when it comes to investors. I get it, there are horror stories but just study the investors involved with Helium first.
Avatar
Haha I’m not saying it one way or the other - just asking a question lol
Avatar
Deleted User 02/11/2021 8:39 PM
Ok
Avatar
There’s so many projects with a hundred different structures - just trying to understand how helium’s impacts this -
20:40
It sounds solid -
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
Why? I'm totally stunned that people are sometimes so harsh when it comes to investors. I get it, there are horror stories but just study the investors involved with Helium first.
It’s because there are a ton of projects where the devs, the foundation, the premine etc get a majority of tokens before any real user sees them. Skepticism is fair.
20:41
I’d read up first though. You can get all these answers in docs.
Avatar
Absolutely 👍
20:47
Read the doc looks well thought!
20:47
I was about to ask about selection - good thing I read the doc first haha
20:48
Looking forward to that part
20:48
- I do have a question about the 6% -
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
what's the upside there? i'd rather consider reducing the unbonding period from 5 months down to 3 potentially.
@evan Yea - if we're not worried about trying to keep validators online once they've decided to unstake and have no rewards, I'd propose to do a 100k block cooldown instead of 250k.
Avatar
Since it’ll effectively be reducing the miners share 29% yes?
Avatar
we're certainly open to the idea
Avatar
Avatar
Hedgehood
Since it’ll effectively be reducing the miners share 29% yes?
no
Avatar
Did I do the math wrong?
20:50
Is it 6% of the total monthly HNT or 6% of the miners 35% of monthly HNT
Avatar
Deleted User 02/11/2021 8:50 PM
That 6% is the consensus rewards
Avatar
Right
20:50
Which comes from the 35% total of miners
Avatar
Deleted User 02/11/2021 8:51 PM
It's being moved from the random 16 hotspot selections to validators
Avatar
it's a separate allocation
Avatar
Right haha
20:51
Ok but where is it coming from -
20:51
Like where does it exist today
Avatar
right now, it's going to the hotspots, henceforth it will go to the validators
Avatar
Haha right
20:51
Same page
20:52
So right now miners earn 35% of all HNT distributed monthly yes?
Avatar
Sorry - I may be off on the graph I’m using
Avatar
they earn 60%
Avatar
Ok - perfect
Avatar
+ the 6% in question here
Avatar
Thank you for clarifying
20:52
So today they earn 66%
Avatar
and sometime this year they will earn 60
Avatar
Got it
20:53
So thank you for clearing up the numbers
Avatar
then there will be the yearly security adjustment and they'll earn a bit more
20:53
I don't know the numbers there
Avatar
Right - I’ve seen that chart
Avatar
but the security token portion goes down over time
Avatar
Gotcha -
20:55
Yep yep
20:55
Makes sense
20:59
So is there any pushback on how the 6% is pulled? Since it’s now a new class that both miners and investors can now access would it not be proportional - like 4% from miners 2% from investors?
21:00
That might sound funny - I’m not pants on fire about it - but I’m thinking of different scenarios
21:00
I can understand the other side making the current setup as well
Avatar
6% is dedicated to block production. if block production moves to validators, they should be entitled to that 6%.
Avatar
Totally
21:00
Agree
21:01
But since miners can no longer access block production it’s not really giving them a choice to participate
21:01
Now it’s just whales from both the mining pool and investor pool
Avatar
investors can own hotspots and miners can stake validators
Avatar
Totally
21:01
And the 6% could hit em on both sides haha
Avatar
miners are, at best, randomly selected into the consensus group and as the network grows, they will do a worse job at it.
21:02
and they will get selected even less frequently.
Avatar
Yah yah - I think this is a better setup
21:02
No question
21:02
I like the setup -
Avatar
the "lottery" is going away, one way or another.
Avatar
Past that part of it -
Avatar
Deleted User 02/11/2021 9:03 PM
Any thoughts on moving challenge construction to validators?
Avatar
@Deleted User I'd be a huge fan of it. it's almost a requirement for light hotspots who won't be able to create challenges on their own.
21:03
but not necessarily something we need to couple with validators.
21:04
that's a HIP for another day though 🙂
👍 1
Avatar
So when does this bad boy go live?
21:05
Testnet -
Avatar
Would validators then also get challenge construction rewards? My vote would be to move that % to poc, if I weren’t going to run validators. move it all to validators. (edited)
Avatar
not germane here, really
21:06
fine for the general hip channel
👍 1
21:06
sorry to be a wet blanket
Avatar
Deleted User 02/11/2021 9:08 PM
That HIPs don't lie video was dope. I particularly liked when @evan was asked to give a little background on himself and he was like "I....umm....uhhhh...hmmmm...I work here?...." Great video.
😂 3
Avatar
hahahah
21:09
yeah, I spent time preparing to talk about this stuff and he caught me flatfooted by asking about me
Avatar
sometimes we just want to know about the person behind the HIP
21:09
tell us your hopes and dreams, evan.
Avatar
post moon, I hope to become a deranged recluse
😹 4
Avatar
got half of that already going for you.
Avatar
if anyone knows of any seaside mountains for sale, lmk, I'm scouting locations now
😆 1
Avatar
i'm not going to be precise on which half.
Avatar
I don't live in some mountain fastness, ok, we have a caltrain station and everything
Avatar
Avatar
evan
if anyone knows of any seaside mountains for sale, lmk, I'm scouting locations now
Deleted User 02/11/2021 9:14 PM
I plan on spending 6 months in Malaysia, the eastern coast. Off topic but yes, I'm with you about going off the grid.
Avatar
I dunno, I'd like a village full of peasants to terrorize
😆 1
21:15
walk into town, give someone 10 HNT for their house, burn it down after they accept, leave
🤣 3
😆 1
jabba 1
Avatar
okay vinod
Avatar
hey, I said I'd pay
21:16
not trying to steal things from the public
Avatar
Once validators are live will they be responsible for constructing challenges or will that still be the role of hotspots until light gateways and their linking to a validator is established?
Avatar
Deleted User 02/11/2021 9:53 PM
That's not part of this HIP.
Avatar
Deleted User 02/12/2021 5:40 AM
For validators please Make it as easy as downloading a software and click run 🏃.
Avatar
Can we get this process approved and go through the interview process before HNT hits $5 or $6? 😆
Avatar
Avatar
usurper
Can we get this process approved and go through the interview process before HNT hits $5 or $6? 😆
Anyone will be able to stake on the main network
06:16
Going as fast as possible on the engineering work
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Anyone will be able to stake on the main network
Was just kidding. I don't have $10k in HNT, so before I need to push cash to get there, it would be good to get through the process.
06:18
Oh, I thought the point of the form was a bit of an interview to be invited, is that not correct?
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/12/2021 6:19 AM
@usurper More to gauge interest and make it easy to communicate with interested parties directly during testing.
06:20
No one will require any sort of permission or access to stake.
Avatar
Avatar
pharkmillups
@usurper More to gauge interest and make it easy to communicate with interested parties directly during testing.
Ah, I see. Thanks for that.
06:22
I don't think this is the channel, but I did have a few questions on the ROI of this. Is there a good place to ask those questions?
Avatar
Avatar
usurper
Was just kidding. I don't have $10k in HNT, so before I need to push cash to get there, it would be good to get through the process.
10k hnt =~$40k usd
Avatar
Avatar
Tyger
10k hnt =~$40k usd
And more every day!
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/12/2021 6:24 AM
@usurper Best channels are #hip-25-validators and #testnet-ops
06:24
Also, we expressly prohibit any sort of ROI / price discussion on this server.
Avatar
Avatar
pharkmillups
Also, we expressly prohibit any sort of ROI / price discussion on this server.
Well, I saw this (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C0Tsz31Qa2b8PHXrl0gMDh2_fXcd2qSWVgF0hmg9Hqg/edit#gid=63991307) pinned to this channel. This looks like ROI to me.
Sheet1 # of validators,total staked,HNT earned / mo / validator,HNT earned / yr / validator,validator annualized return 10,100,000,30,000,360,000,3600% 20,200,000,15,000,180,000,1800% 30,300,000,10,000,120,000,1200% 40,400,000,7,500,90,000,900% 50,500,000,6,000,72,000,720% 60,600,000,5,000,60,00...
06:27
I'm purely talking about HNT earnings for validation questions, nothing to do with the value of HNT.
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/12/2021 6:29 AM
Yup. That's entirely fine.
Avatar
Not sure if it has been stated or not but when staking with a pool do you have to send your funds to the validator owner?
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/12/2021 6:32 AM
Valiidator node does not hold the HNT.
Avatar
so i can stake from my wallet to the pool
06:32
and have the locked funds in my control
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/12/2021 6:33 AM
That is likely up to who is running the pool.
Avatar
yes this is the issue
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/12/2021 6:33 AM
Heh.
Avatar
sending it to them
06:36
like if you want to stake with 2k hnt can the coins stay in your wallet
06:36
and you pledge it to their validator node and it stays locked on your wallet
06:37
or wherever the coins are locked too (edited)
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/12/2021 6:41 AM
Is it correct that the stake wouldn't be "held" by any third party it would just stay in your wallet and be locked (restricted from being transferred/used)?
Avatar
better phrased than me 😂
Avatar
With the target of 100 validators before going live. How about we open the ability to stake today? The first 100 get a one or two week head start before other validators can come on line. I see it as a win/win.
Avatar
Avatar
Longtooth
With the target of 100 validators before going live. How about we open the ability to stake today? The first 100 get a one or two week head start before other validators can come on line. I see it as a win/win.
lol
Avatar
Think about it... Are we going to wait while testing is going on and then open the doors and wait again until we hit 100?
07:27
With a 5 month cool down already in place, what's another couple of months.
Avatar
testnet hasnt even begun yet.
Avatar
So, what's your estimate on the testing timeline?
Avatar
however long is needed to make sure its stable. validators is a big deal, want to make sure we get it right the first time
👍 2
Avatar
It's just about the same code that is running on the hotspots...correct.
Avatar
Going live with an untested Validator network is a great recipe
07:30
For disaster
💯 2
Avatar
I get that.... but there is no need to wait until the very end to open the doors. It would be prudent to have 100 validators staked before the testing is done.
Avatar
Digital Ansible 02/12/2021 7:33 AM
I am very interested in this.
Avatar
Not only staked, but in place and ready to roll.
Avatar
Testing won’t end until there are 100 staked, in place and ready to go
07:34
That’s the plan
Avatar
exactly (edited)
Avatar
Ok, so you agree.
07:34
Just open it up sooner then later.
Avatar
open up....before testing is done? what?
Avatar
you just said, testing will not be done until staked & in place.
Avatar
I personally believe that the network should go live with me as the only validator so I get all the HNT
🤣 2
💯 1
Avatar
the test net is seperate from the real network
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
I personally believe that the network should go live with me as the only validator so I get all the HNT
i support this
Avatar
The point of validators is to make the network stable and scalable, not to make fast people rich
Avatar
If you look at the process it only makes sense to have the stake done early. Then once test net is looking good, it's pushed out to the folks that staked. Then, that has to be tested and when that looks good, cut over.
Avatar
also giving some a one/two week head start would be a huge jerk move.
Avatar
Right that’s the plan
07:39
Kind of
Avatar
Not the way I see it... There is a huge risk that testing takes longer then thought knowing that you have a stable of validators ready to go and willing to be part of the testing is a benefit to everyone.
Avatar
Once testing is done switch over to people who have staked. Aka once it works use it. If it takes “longer than thought” it’s because it’s not working yet (edited)
Avatar
Maybe I am missing something.
07:45
Are you saying that everyone who stakes is going to be able to put their validator on the test net? How would that work if using AWS?
Avatar
i think youre confusing a couple things
07:46
the test net will have its own test tokens etc
Avatar
The testnet is completely separate
Avatar
that's what I thought.
07:48
Let me ask it in a different way...
Avatar
Avatar
Longtooth
I get that.... but there is no need to wait until the very end to open the doors. It would be prudent to have 100 validators staked before the testing is done.
The intent is to open staking on the main net as soon as possible while testing is in progress
07:51
Just need to get to some sanity threshold first
👍 1
Avatar
That works.
Avatar
Doggywalker29 02/12/2021 7:56 AM
Any discussion of having staking pools similar to eth 2.0? This could lock up even more HNT, widen the participation and interest and possibly have a positive impact on HNT price.
Avatar
Avatar
Doggywalker29
Any discussion of having staking pools similar to eth 2.0? This could lock up even more HNT, widen the participation and interest and possibly have a positive impact on HNT price.
Not initially, but likely down the line
Avatar
This may be a really basic question, but will Binance (or similar) be able to stake HNT for this? I wasn't sure how the staking support works for different wallet options.
Avatar
If Binance wanted to offer staking and running validator nodes for HNT, they could
Avatar
There’s a pretty good chance of that happening
Avatar
Avatar
helpfullfox178
I have no hotspots near me😭
JoshJeXplorer 02/12/2021 8:19 AM
Start building the network out near you. Purchase some outdoor rigs and then mount them at friends and neighbors houses, or indoor if they have a good window you can use. That’s what I’ve been doing. Some people I pay a hosting fee to or share a percentage of the HNT mined from that device. It’s a win win for everyone.
Avatar
Sorry, I didn’t search to find the info, I did scan the channel, but validators also need a packet-forwarder, correct?
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/12/2021 9:04 AM
no
09:05
validators are essentially only the miner aspect of existing gateways
09:05
packet forwarder sends RF data from gateway to the miner
Avatar
Then what is the validator validating if it’s not receiving anything from other miners?
Avatar
transactions
09:13
which the hotspots feed it
Avatar
So there is nothing tying the validator to a certain location. They can all be on the same AWS server.
Avatar
ideally not, but I suppose you could do that
09:17
please read the HIP
👆 1
09:17
it's not long
09:17
it spells out a lot of common questions
Avatar
Avatar
usurper
This may be a really basic question, but will Binance (or similar) be able to stake HNT for this? I wasn't sure how the staking support works for different wallet options.
I worded this poorly. Can a validator node utilize the helium "app wallet", or will it need a local command-line wallet on the node. Just thinking about security and risk. I didn't see anything called out in the faq..
Avatar
Avatar
evan
please read the HIP
JoshJeXplorer 02/12/2021 9:21 AM
I was reading the HIP trying to find information on what the requirements of a home server would be. I know they are discouraged but I think I’m in a unique situation living across from a Google Fiber hub and having a steady 1GB up and down connection. I could upgrade to 2GB if needed. We also have generator power should there be an outage. Are there any documents yet or DIY guides on what a home server setup would look like? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
JoshJeXplorer
I was reading the HIP trying to find information on what the requirements of a home server would be. I know they are discouraged but I think I’m in a unique situation living across from a Google Fiber hub and having a steady 1GB up and down connection. I could upgrade to 2GB if needed. We also have generator power should there be an outage. Are there any documents yet or DIY guides on what a home server setup would look like? (edited)
just get a static ip, use your firewall to block everything but the two specified ports, which should be mapped to the server
Avatar
Avatar
usurper
I worded this poorly. Can a validator node utilize the helium "app wallet", or will it need a local command-line wallet on the node. Just thinking about security and risk. I didn't see anything called out in the faq..
no app support, use the command line wallet for the owner keys
Avatar
Avatar
evan
no app support, use the command line wallet for the owner keys
Thanks Evan.
Avatar
Avatar
evan
just get a static ip, use your firewall to block everything but the two specified ports, which should be mapped to the server
JoshJeXplorer 02/12/2021 9:29 AM
Thanks! What would be the server requirements? CPU, Ram, etc...
Avatar
Avatar
evan
please read the HIP
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/12/2021 9:29 AM
or the video if that's your style. 🙂 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOEAxXaANkI
📹 1
Avatar
Avatar
JoshJeXplorer
Thanks! What would be the server requirements? CPU, Ram, etc...
The FAQ calls out EC2 t2.large or t2.xlarge sizes. Those are 2 vCPU / 8GB and 4 vCPU and 16GB instances. Pretty small.
Avatar
Avatar
usurper
The FAQ calls out EC2 t2.large or t2.xlarge sizes. Those are 2 vCPU / 8GB and 4 vCPU and 16GB instances. Pretty small.
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/12/2021 9:39 AM
yeah there isn't all that much compute needed hence why the network has been running on raspis to date still going fairly strong with 18k gateways all things considered
Avatar
Is AWS required, or are alternate providers suitable?
Avatar
AWS definitely not required
Avatar
so i bought this threadripper 3990x for nothing?! 😆 (edited)
😂 3
Avatar
What would equivalent services be on something like Google Cloud or Azure?
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
so i bought this threadripper 3990x for nothing?! 😆 (edited)
Just imagine how many validators you could run on one box...
Avatar
would only be 1 validator per static ip right?
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 02/12/2021 10:12 AM
A t2.large is 2 CPU with 8gb of ram
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
Just imagine how many validators you could run on one box...
128 threads, probably all the validators haha
Avatar
Seems to me Helium should have thought about scalability a longtime ago actually before even launching. This is a Helium issue. We made a commitment to buy miners. Getting 16 validators up (or even 100) should come out of all the money Helium raised. Time to stop getting us to build this critical piece and boot up AWS servers.
clowd 3
🥴 2
😂 6
facepalm 3
Troll 3
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
so i bought this threadripper 3990x for nothing?! 😆 (edited)
I know we were talking hardware a while ago - I've got some beefy stuff I'll probably run this on too - and while I do have a few locations where I'd likely only run one instance per site, if I ended up wanting to run more than one node at a single site, I'd plan on just having multiple static IPs issued to that site and mapping each one to the virtual mac address of the VM running on my machine and we could run multiple nodes on a single piece of hardware. I mean that's what cloud systems are doing anyway...
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
QB12
Seems to me Helium should have thought about scalability a longtime ago actually before even launching. This is a Helium issue. We made a commitment to buy miners. Getting 16 validators up (or even 100) should come out of all the money Helium raised. Time to stop getting us to build this critical piece and boot up AWS servers.
This amount of centralization makes no sense for a decentralized network.
Avatar
I’m assuming that’s a deep troll of some kind
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
I know we were talking hardware a while ago - I've got some beefy stuff I'll probably run this on too - and while I do have a few locations where I'd likely only run one instance per site, if I ended up wanting to run more than one node at a single site, I'd plan on just having multiple static IPs issued to that site and mapping each one to the virtual mac address of the VM running on my machine and we could run multiple nodes on a single piece of hardware. I mean that's what cloud systems are doing anyway...
if the pool is big enough, home stuff of this sort is probably ok, but it doesn't add much to resilience and is kind of against the spirit of the thing
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
This amount of centralization makes no sense for a decentralized network.
Seems the amount of centralization that will take place will be fleeting as validation quickly becomes pretty well decentralized again.
Avatar
Avatar
evan
if the pool is big enough, home stuff of this sort is probably ok, but it doesn't add much to resilience and is kind of against the spirit of the thing
If someone's running something on a PC at home with basic power and internet, I totally agree it's not what we're looking for. But if you've got existing production servers, UPS backups, dedicated fiber lines with failover, etc - you can run a super stable setup for a far cheaper unit cost.
Avatar
I think the potentially trolled proposal was to make helium, inc run all validators. That’s massive centralization
oooh 1
Avatar
Avatar
ordoinc
Seems the amount of centralization that will take place will be fleeting as validation quickly becomes pretty well decentralized again.
I was responding to that, somewhat laughable, proposal. I agree with you. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
I was responding to that, somewhat laughable, proposal. I agree with you. (edited)
I don't think poster realized how good this is for Helium not to do it - it allows others to participate in that part of the revenue stream too
this 3
👍 3
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
If someone's running something on a PC at home with basic power and internet, I totally agree it's not what we're looking for. But if you've got existing production servers, UPS backups, dedicated fiber lines with failover, etc - you can run a super stable setup for a far cheaper unit cost.
but it'll still be one location, and thus not really adding a ton
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
I don't think poster realized how good this is for Helium not to do it - it allows others to participate in that part of the revenue stream too
Continue to believe it has to be a troll attempt
Avatar
esp with just one machine
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
I don't think poster realized how good this is for Helium not to do it - it allows others to participate in that part of the revenue stream too
I’m excited to see some new participants on the network. Especially in areas manufacturers haven’t been able to make or distribute hotspots.
Avatar
One has to acknowledge that there is an unfortunate edge case where someone buys a hotspot miner for $$$ just before the validators come online and they don't ever make their fiat money back. And perhaps people with poor coverage. For everyone else, I trust that their mined HNT repaid their investment many times over. I just don't see how Helium could have bootstrapped network expansion momentum any other way... I think they are on the right path with HIP25 (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
k0b13
One has to acknowledge that there is an unfortunate edge case where someone buys a hotspot miner for $$$ just before the validators come online and they don't ever make their fiat money back. And perhaps people with poor coverage. For everyone else, I trust that their mined HNT repaid their investment many times over. I just don't see how Helium could have bootstrapped network expansion momentum any other way... I think they are on the right path with HIP25 (edited)
Sounds like you haven’t had a chance to read the motivation section and how much of an impact this will actually have on rewards.
Avatar
let me go re-read that
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
k0b13
One has to acknowledge that there is an unfortunate edge case where someone buys a hotspot miner for $$$ just before the validators come online and they don't ever make their fiat money back. And perhaps people with poor coverage. For everyone else, I trust that their mined HNT repaid their investment many times over. I just don't see how Helium could have bootstrapped network expansion momentum any other way... I think they are on the right path with HIP25 (edited)
If a hotspot owner is buying a hotspot in the hopes of only hitting the consensus group to earn rewards, they will be very sad as the probability of that happening continuously decreases. It’s only 16 hotspots out of the entire network at a time. Proof of coverage rewards are still 60% of the rewards and are where hotspot owners should always be focused regardless of this HIP (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
This rising tide will definitely raise all ships. Better security and better, more stable block times only serves to increase the value of the network and its providers.
👍 1
Avatar
I think what threw me off was the comments around 24m27s in the HIP25 podcast episode where it was mentioned the sale of expensive hotspots will eventually become a thing of the past. Thanks for clearing this up 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
evan
but it'll still be one location, and thus not really adding a ton
I only currently plan on a single instance per location anyway, and yes totally agree that more than one at a single location does hurt diversity and resiliency. And while I'm confident that AWS instances and other cloud services will be super stable and likely to be spread out - there could be a bunch of nodes running in one location, and they could all drop offline together with an AWS outage at that site. And AWS has had plenty of decent sized outages - just November was the most recent one I was reading about where Adobe, Roku, and iRobot all got knocked offline for hours, some older interruptions have knocked organizations offline for days. https://www.protocol.com/newsletters/protocol-enterprise/aws-outage-reinvent-salesforce-slack?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2 But yes I totally agree the best thing is a single node per site, and how I plan to operate to begin with too.
Avatar
Avatar
k0b13
I think what threw me off was the comments around 24m27s in the HIP25 podcast episode where it was mentioned the sale of expensive hotspots will eventually become a thing of the past. Thanks for clearing this up 🙂
Just means they will be cheaper in the future
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
I only currently plan on a single instance per location anyway, and yes totally agree that more than one at a single location does hurt diversity and resiliency. And while I'm confident that AWS instances and other cloud services will be super stable and likely to be spread out - there could be a bunch of nodes running in one location, and they could all drop offline together with an AWS outage at that site. And AWS has had plenty of decent sized outages - just November was the most recent one I was reading about where Adobe, Roku, and iRobot all got knocked offline for hours, some older interruptions have knocked organizations offline for days. https://www.protocol.com/newsletters/protocol-enterprise/aws-outage-reinvent-salesforce-slack?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2 But yes I totally agree the best thing is a single node per site, and how I plan to operate to begin with too.
I totally agree. I think that people should use their description field to post, say, a json blob of their URL and location so people can try to spread out
👍 1
11:19
I considered trying to make a bounty for new AZ-analogues happen, but I got busy (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
QB12
Seems to me Helium should have thought about scalability a longtime ago actually before even launching. This is a Helium issue. We made a commitment to buy miners. Getting 16 validators up (or even 100) should come out of all the money Helium raised. Time to stop getting us to build this critical piece and boot up AWS servers.
Yeah, while you're at it, can you just remove HBBFT as well? It takes up too much cpu and network. When I signed up for hosting hotspots, I never realized how much electricity and bandwidth it would take when I went into consensus
💯 1
Avatar
Yeah, I can't tell who is serious or who is trolling anymore.
👆 2
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
Yeah, I can't tell who is serious or who is trolling anymore.
what, you mean it's not a sane suggestion that we should run all the AWS servers?
Avatar
don't forget Digital Ocean 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
what, you mean it's not a sane suggestion that we should run all the AWS servers?
oh, it's not the "where to host" comments that I'm unsure about, it's the "I can't believe this costs money" comments. (edited)
Avatar
it is new to most people
12:43
so they don't understand the collateral needed
Avatar
I'm interested in this op.I have filled out the form. I have my own equipment in multiple datacenters. In preparations, should I setup ubuntu VMs with the miner so it can sync the block chain or will it be a different miner code?
Avatar
Avatar
j3rm
I'm interested in this op.I have filled out the form. I have my own equipment in multiple datacenters. In preparations, should I setup ubuntu VMs with the miner so it can sync the block chain or will it be a different miner code?
honestly the prepping is probably not necessary at this stage. we'll be providing instructions on joining the testnet soon enough and it looks like most of it will be dockerized.
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
honestly the prepping is probably not necessary at this stage. we'll be providing instructions on joining the testnet soon enough and it looks like most of it will be dockerized.
Thanks for the feedback. I'll save my time and efforts for the testnet.
Avatar
Westview Data 02/12/2021 1:25 PM
Will there be staking-as-a-service providers on board, so that instead of doing all the technical work we can just deposit 10k HNT and watch the magic?
Avatar
Avatar
Westview Data
Will there be staking-as-a-service providers on board, so that instead of doing all the technical work we can just deposit 10k HNT and watch the magic?
we hope 3rd party providers will do so, but unlikely on launch
Avatar
I would be interested in providing that service. I'm not sure the formal way of going about doing that.
Avatar
when a person and a business idea love each other very much, a corporation is formed
🥰 1
Avatar
lol I already have one for my HNT lol.. so I should just put the service on the web site and start taking orders. I was more talking about any thing formal from helium, list of SaaS providers...
Avatar
it's all new
13:40
shoot @pharkmillups a dm/email?
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/12/2021 1:42 PM
@j3rm Yo. You're interesting in a providing a staking service?
Avatar
I'm not even sure how that would work. we don't provide on-chain reward splitting at this point. you just run it for someone, and they remit N% at the end of the month or you shut their validator down?
13:44
(just thinking through the logistics out loud, I don't know how existing services work)
Avatar
At this point it’s a trust-based market
Avatar
yup, and power is in wallet owner's hands since reward is deposited into staking wallet (edited)
Avatar
is this 100% true
14:00
as i asked this multiple times and got zero answers
Avatar
is what true?
Avatar
what para said
Avatar
im not sure i follow. what's the specific question?
Avatar
his might have been different than my original question
14:03
mine is will there be a way to hold funds in your wallet
14:03
when staking to a 3rd party pool
Avatar
depends on the third party pool, it's not on-chain
Avatar
ok thanks
Avatar
my guess would be no. if i ran a third party pool i wouldn't trust you
Avatar
same goes for the pool setting up the validator
Avatar
yea, id require you to send me the HNT and i'd hold it for the entire time
14:05
maybe someone will create TrustPool where that is not needed
Avatar
there is other chains which have a pledge system that is locked on the wallet side
14:06
maybe they will do a similar thing
14:07
i personally could not send over all the coins and trust they would return at the end of your staking period (edited)
14:07
maybe im in the minority that think like that
Avatar
im with you, trust no one
👍 2
🤖 1
Avatar
Trust Bert verify
facepalm 2
😂 2
Avatar
To run a validator node, it's recommending to not use home internet. What would be used instead?
Avatar
vps
Avatar
☁
⛈️ 1
Avatar
So for example I would use Liquid Web for internet and AWS for cloud storage?
Avatar
starbucks internet
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
If someone's running something on a PC at home with basic power and internet, I totally agree it's not what we're looking for. But if you've got existing production servers, UPS backups, dedicated fiber lines with failover, etc - you can run a super stable setup for a far cheaper unit cost.
JoshJeXplorer 02/12/2021 3:36 PM
That’s what I’m thinking. I have all of that except the server. Just looking for some recommendations on a server setup I could buy? I’ve got a backup generator, fiber, fall over internet on site lol. I’m ready to go. But would want to buy my own rig.
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
☁
👏 1
☝️ 1
💯 1
😹 3
Avatar
Avatar
JoshJeXplorer
That’s what I’m thinking. I have all of that except the server. Just looking for some recommendations on a server setup I could buy? I’ve got a backup generator, fiber, fall over internet on site lol. I’m ready to go. But would want to buy my own rig.
Hardware requirements is looking like 2C/4T CPU and 8-16GB RAM. An old desktop would work if you aren't worried too much about reliability. Otherwise, you could pickup a used Dell R720 server with error correcting RAM, hardware RAID controller, and redundant power supplies for cheap.
15:59
Maybe wait for testnet launch before purchasing new hardware.
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
Hardware requirements is looking like 2C/4T CPU and 8-16GB RAM. An old desktop would work if you aren't worried too much about reliability. Otherwise, you could pickup a used Dell R720 server with error correcting RAM, hardware RAID controller, and redundant power supplies for cheap.
JoshJeXplorer 02/12/2021 4:02 PM
Thank you!
Avatar
Fun fact that a lot of people that aren't cloud experts don't know. When Azure or AWS refer to a "vCPU", that's a thread, not a dedicated core.
Avatar
of the thousands of hotsppot owners, I would only expect a few of them to understand.
Avatar
Calculus Cat 02/12/2021 5:25 PM
Am i right in thinking that consensus groups have now been sunsetted?
Avatar
also the benchmark for CPU is based on a core from over 10 years ago; it's just a way of amazon standardizing the term. almost any modern CPU will way outperform an Amazon "CPU". likely the hardware requirements are looking more for network stability and RAM, I doubt the CPU speed matters
Avatar
Avatar
Calculus Cat
Am i right in thinking that consensus groups have now been sunsetted?
Their functionality is being moved to validators. (edited)
Avatar
Calculus Cat 02/12/2021 5:39 PM
@neema.eth I realized that, but have they gone at this point or can I look forward to nice bump any more?
Avatar
It's still possible, but the consensus group is only 16 hotspots out of the entire network 18k+ hotspots. Each consensus group lasts only a single epoch (though there is some stickiness between epochs) and target epoch time is every 30 minutes.
17:44
You would have better luck playing scratch off cards instead of counting on the current consensus group hitting.
Avatar
I still haven’t hit the CG
😂 1
Avatar
I have hit once since 16
Avatar
Calculus Cat 02/12/2021 6:42 PM
@neema.eth I have had 2 last all day in the since the beginning of 2021 - Never done scratch off though.
Avatar
I wouldn't bother then, you have used up all of your karma.
Avatar
Just out of pure curiosity, how can I tell if my hotspot has hit a CG?
Avatar
Does a validator need to know the seed of a wallet?
Avatar
Avatar
k0b13
Just out of pure curiosity, how can I tell if my hotspot has hit a CG?
oh, you will know 😉 your hnt balance will rise quickly
21:14
you'll see something like this 🤤
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Chuy
Does a validator need to know the seed of a wallet?
the owner of a validator and the validator itself have separate keys
Avatar
Avatar
evan
the owner of a validator and the validator itself have separate keys
Hmm, Does the server owner need to have access to the wallet with the 10k hnt?
Avatar
owner yes
21:35
but the owner doesn't often need to do things, so it can be a cold wallet
Avatar
I was just wondering if there was a way for a technical person to work with the servers without having keys to the staked wallet.
21:39
the txn needs to be signed by the validator and the owner. the owner address gets the rewards and pays the stake. so you can send the signed txn to someone technical, they also sign with the validator they are running, and there you go
Avatar
Avatar
evan
the txn needs to be signed by the validator and the owner. the owner address gets the rewards and pays the stake. so you can send the signed txn to someone technical, they also sign with the validator they are running, and there you go
Thanks
Avatar
Is there going to be the option of staking from the app wallet. Unlikely I can meet requirements of a server but would still like the option to stake someone else running a server.
01:33
Oh maybe should have read up I think that answers my questions
Avatar
Will there be a guide out on how to stake before the testnet goes live? Or will it be before the mainnet?
Avatar
Avatar
Cryptonite
Will there be a guide out on how to stake before the testnet goes live? Or will it be before the mainnet?
Testnet is going to have its own tokens to stake (not HNT), my guess is the transaction to stake will be similar between the two
Avatar
Anyone aware of a VAAS that will handle HNT?
Avatar
The transaction will be exactly the same just different medium between testnet and mainnet
Avatar
I’ve been brainstorming a bit on the cooldown and was looking at other PoS blockchains to see about their cooldown period. However one of the issues I’m running into is understanding the exact issue it’s meant to prevent. Is it to ensure a certain amount of time a validator will be online? Is it to make someone really think about if they should unstake or not?
Avatar
jas_williams 02/13/2021 7:21 AM
I assume it is to provide stability in staked validators if you have a period of cool down where you can’t earn but also can’t access your HNT is makes the staler really consider before removing their stake (edited)
Avatar
So it’s more of the latter? But what if that validator was a good one for 5 months prior to deciding they don’t want to anymore? Should they wait another 5 months before their initial investment is returned with no rewards in the meantime? (edited)
07:28
If they were a good validator that provided a good enough service to be rewarded for 5 months I think is a little different than someone who staked for a month with bad performance and than wanted to cash out (edited)
07:34
Now I think if someone staked and the next day wanted to unstake that the 5 month cooldown would be warranted since it provides stability of the group. I guess my big suggestion, would be to initiate a 5 month cooldown period upon initial stake. After 5 months that stake is available for instant transfer back to the owner. If the 5 months isn’t up than they can still unstake but the stake wouldn’t return to the owners wallet until the 5 months elapsed.. this would make any rational person run the validator for a minimum of 5 months each and every time.. and if they don’t they have to wait for their stake to be returned
Avatar
I think the hope is to prevent massive unstaking during a big sudden price spike or decline
07:54
if 5 month is truly painful, maybe we should lower it to 2 or 3
Avatar
Well I can see that but wouldn’t the mass unstaking result in the ones sticking around getting massive rewards for that time period? As long as the mass unstaking doesn’t shift the pool below the minimum threshold (which at this point what would happen if this occurred? No new election until it’s exceeded again?) (edited)
Avatar
We could do it like eth with no way to unstake😁
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I think the hope is to prevent massive unstaking during a big sudden price spike or decline
Yup, I'm still on board with saying we go to 100k blocks
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
Well I can see that but wouldn’t the mass unstaking result in the ones sticking around getting massive rewards for that time period? As long as the mass unstaking doesn’t shift the pool below the minimum threshold (which at this point what would happen if this occurred? No new election until it’s exceeded again?) (edited)
The problem then becomes - if a ton of people have unstaked because of a big price drop, sure those left get big rewards, but now that the HNT price is low, and there aren't many validators left, it's far easier for someone to buy up enough HNT and create enough validators to mess up the network if they wanted to
Avatar
Not really.. still need 2/3+1 to do that and if price is tanking like that then there’s a reason .. ie to high of risk for the biscuit. Now I’m not saying to change the pre-mature unstake but if a validator has done it’s job for 5 months and wants to unstake and get their stake back why make them wait 5 more months?
08:03
You’re also suggesting that everyone at that point will be jumping ship so overall network stability is a huge concern
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
You’re also suggesting that everyone at that point will be jumping ship so overall network stability is a huge concern
yup, absolutely would be, hence why you'd want to do what you can to keep validators online and not let them just pull all their money out immediately and stop staking to prevent both stability concern, and just because there is a reason people are pulling out, still doesn't mean someone would want to do a 2/3+1
Avatar
Nothing is stopping them from just unplugging them in the first place
Avatar
I was of the mind that half rewards should be given during unstaking period so the network has a better heads up of when stakers will leave, and they're encouraged to stay online
08:07
totally agree nothing prevents them from turning off - hence why I think it should be incentivized the whole time to stay on through some sort of rewards
Avatar
Half rewards for doing what? When you unstake you’re not validating
Avatar
during the cooldown
Avatar
the sentiment here seems to be that shorter but not too short is probably ok. I don't think that warning is all that big a deal, really. nodes in the consensus group so go offline
Avatar
yea - evan and I have had this convo here, basically folks figured there will be so many validators that having the heads up isn't too important
Avatar
When you initiate cooldown your validator is deactivated
Avatar
as for some sort of periodic recommitment, I don't see what it would get us other than complexity for very slightly different dynamics and a harder to understand system
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
When you initiate cooldown your validator is deactivated
doesn't have to be, that's just the way folks have decided to do it
08:09
could be that validator can still run during cooldown, just a decision this hip has to make
Avatar
So what’s the issue with keeping it 5 months and allowing instant unstake if the validator has worked for those 5 months?
Avatar
see my comment above
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
So what’s the issue with keeping it 5 months and allowing instant unstake if the validator has worked for those 5 months?
to encourage validators to stay staked
Avatar
You’re essentially making a contract for the validator where it makes sense to stay online for 5 months
Avatar
Westview Data 02/13/2021 8:12 AM
Will there be a system of staking your wallet without needing to send your coins to a VaaS? For example, Cardano lets you stake your own wallet, which is a lot safer than sending your coins somewhere.
Avatar
But if all validators are unstaking isn’t the network a mute point?
08:16
If the price is high I see validators staying in due to the rewards.. if the price is tanking you’re essentially forcing validators to stay in the network .. at that point the AWS bill will be a money sink with no rewards and you’re forcing a 5 month unstaking period (no money out to reclaim any loses) that’s a lose - lose and Id just shut off the validator anyways to save me that monthly bill while waiting for the stake to comeback.. because if it’s tanking then the network is failing (edited)
Avatar
Doesn’t have to be that binary. People might still panic-unstake during volatility which makes the network more volatile as a result
Avatar
But if they provide 5 months of services why make them wait another 5? If it’s that bad that all 100+ validators want to jump ship than they lost that stake anyways and will just unplug to save the monthly bill. I also know there will be people who will ride it out. I guess the big question here now is what happens if that minimum threshold isn’t met during operation?
🍉 1
Avatar
If interested in joining the Patrium validator pool, please fill out this form: https://forms.gle/Awtxzk4qodvGmGZs5 Thanks, Ross
Create a new survey on your own or with others at the same time. Choose from a variety of survey types and analyze results in Google Forms. Free from Google.
Avatar
Having unbonding periods also self selects for long term participants in the first place so you don’t get into that position as often anyway
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
But if they provide 5 months of services why make them wait another 5? If it’s that bad that all 100+ validators want to jump ship than they lost that stake anyways and will just unplug to save the monthly bill. I also know there will be people who will ride it out. I guess the big question here now is what happens if that minimum threshold isn’t met during operation?
Again you don’t have to assume that everyone is jumping ship and the world is ending. Just think about normal volatility of crypto
Avatar
I’m referencing to the main agreement to why allowing a validator who’s done it’s time will still need to wait to unstake. https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/798317614879342622/810178347349835836 (edited)
Avatar
Having unbonding periods also self selects for long term participants in the first place so you don’t get into that position as often anyway
@capcom I also think wait 5 more months after unstaking is a bit too long, especially if the validator has been in service for more than 5 months
(edited)
Avatar
Yea I have no idea if 5 months is right or not. Just talking conceptually
Avatar
Adding this would also make overstaking (if decided either by more coins or a longer commitment cooldown) could allow for partial unstaking
08:25
If they’ve stuck it out for 5 months I think they deserve to jump ship, pivot, do an audible, move to a staking service instead. No matter the external pressures present.
08:25
I guess that last part is currently available with transfers
Avatar
Or join a pool that offers liquidity.... like Patrium's is planning on!
08:28
If interested in joining the Patrium validator pool, please fill out this form: https://forms.gle/Awtxzk4qodvGmGZs5 Thanks, Ross
Create a new survey on your own or with others at the same time. Choose from a variety of survey types and analyze results in Google Forms. Free from Google.
08:28
🙂
Avatar
yesterday I implemented movement, so you can always sell your stake to someone who wants to stake to get it back
🔥 3
👍 2
08:30
(also unstake cancellation)
Avatar
Avatar
Ross
If interested in joining the Patrium validator pool, please fill out this form: https://forms.gle/Awtxzk4qodvGmGZs5 Thanks, Ross
Funkyanimal 02/13/2021 8:34 AM
Ross... Form is requiring group membership. Do you have to be a patrium member
Avatar
It’s fixed. Try now (edited)
Avatar
IMO the long unbonding period helps promote network health. We don’t want “hot money” coming in and staking hnt only to unstake it next week when they move on to the next shiny thing. We want long term stake holders who care about Helium to be running validators, not short term hot money (edited)
Avatar
I do see how the longer term thinkers would benefit more from this. If more folks are scared off by the long unbonding period, the ones who stake will earn higher APY (edited)
09:47
Fewer, but more committed, validators
Avatar
Exactly. The longer term validators have more skin in the game (edited)
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 02/13/2021 9:50 AM
I thought the validator stops providing "coverage" once they unstake though?
09:51
like immediately
Avatar
@☹ GHOSTY BOI what do you mean by “coverage”?
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 02/13/2021 9:52 AM
issuing challenges/participating in the CG
Avatar
Ok then you are correct as far as I know
09:53
The 5 month unbonding is intended to dissuade people from staking unless they intend to stay staked for a long time
09:53
Those validators won’t earn for those 5 months while unbonding (edited)
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 02/13/2021 9:55 AM
So hypothetical here.... Market tanks, bunch of people unstake, network health drops, market goes back up, people use unstake cancelation?
09:56
the unstaking is somewhat moot unless there is slashing. Id only pay for my cloud instances when the price is favorable (edited)
Avatar
My suggestion keeps that 5 months but allows a validator who has been validating for 5 months can unstake without waiting 5 months longer
Avatar
@Anthonyra the problem with that is pools will then abstract away all the unbonding time
09:57
So the 5 month period becomes toothless
Avatar
It’s based on each stake amount
09:58
In that scenario..
Avatar
Tracking that on chain sounds like a lot of state bloat to me. But I’ll defer to Evan on that
Avatar
10k goes in 5 months elapsed while work is being performed than that stake can be unstake as without waiting for another 5 months.
Avatar
we don't have a natural "long epoch" like some other chains, we'd need to make something to chain it to
09:59
it also leads to weird incentive discontinuities
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
So the 5 month period becomes toothless
Yep. One way to deal with this would be to do something like Cardano. You have to Stake through some number of epochs before earning. That way you front load that period for the delegators
Avatar
@Tushar from an incentive perspective, do you have opinons on being able to "sell" a validator stake?
10:00
our feeling was that it keeps the pool the same size but allows a bit of liquidity for the desperate
Avatar
Avatar
evan
@Tushar from an incentive perspective, do you have opinons on being able to "sell" a validator stake?
I think this is the perfect compromise
10:01
Will noodle on it a bit more though
Avatar
How does the pool stay the same? Unless buyer needs to spin up a validator in the sellers place?
10:02
the original transaction allowed one owner to trade in a new validator (in case of compromise, etc). the new version allows transfer to a validator owned by someone else
10:03
so the possibility of stake exit at any time is there, you just have to find someone willing to take your place
10:03
possibly taking a haircut in the process, but that's markets for you
👍 1
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 02/13/2021 10:04 AM
has a minimum staking period been discussed in order to be eligible for CG? or is that beyond the scope of the initial roll out?
Avatar
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI
has a minimum staking period been discussed in order to be eligible for CG? or is that beyond the scope of the initial roll out?
we talked about a warm-up but decided that it didn't add a lot. I can try to dig up the discussion later if you're interested
Avatar
Well, let’s say a seller wants to get their stake back. So they initiate a movement with a buyer. That buyer spins up a validator and transfers that stake for 9k HNT and instantly starts the unstake process to receive the 10k HNT after 5 months? The pool size is still reduced but with an extra step and some hair cutting going on
Avatar
why would you do that?
10:09
you pay someone 9k for 10k in 5 months?
Avatar
Well, depending on the value of HNT. It’s essentially a paycheck loan
Avatar
it would make a lot more sense to run the validator, I think
10:10
maybe not in the long run when there are 5000+ validators, but I care less then
Avatar
If they want out because of value dropping and want to cash out. If they were to need to wait 5 months and who know the value back or get a haircut up front. Eh $100/mo for 5 months. Who knows the reward payout at the time. Maybe a quick spin up and drop would be more lucrative... if that’s an okay scenario than it is what it is
Avatar
Is the staking 5 month "blocks", or just at least 5 months? I guess I'm asking, I'm staking for 5, 10, 15 months, but not 12 or 7.
Avatar
Cooldown period is 250,000 blocks ~5months.
Avatar
So the former. 5/10/15/etc in full blocks. Makes sense.
10:36
Thanks.
Avatar
Avatar
usurper
So the former. 5/10/15/etc in full blocks. Makes sense.
Just to be sure you understood - the 5 months right now is how long to get your money back after choosing to unstake. You can stake for 1 month, elect to unstake and you get your money back in month 6, or you can stake for 7 months, elect to unstake then and have it back at month 12.
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
Well, let’s say a seller wants to get their stake back. So they initiate a movement with a buyer. That buyer spins up a validator and transfers that stake for 9k HNT and instantly starts the unstake process to receive the 10k HNT after 5 months? The pool size is still reduced but with an extra step and some hair cutting going on
I think the way it would work would be if you have your validator and want out, you find a buyer, they spin up their own validator, pay you whatever ya'll agree on, and you transfer your stake to them and it's associated with their validator now and you have your money immediately (whatever you and buyer agreed on).
Avatar
🤷‍♂️ meets the same intent but also can have the same result
Avatar
Avatar
Ross
Or join a pool that offers liquidity.... like Patrium's is planning on!
Keen to hear any developments on this, form filled out.
Avatar
@RainChasing will do. Amazing response so far. I am going to sort through all the responses and come up with a proposed offering for folks to consider.
Avatar
Avatar
Ross
Or join a pool that offers liquidity.... like Patrium's is planning on!
Michael-5th 02/13/2021 2:35 PM
Just filled out! I was just trying to work out the economics of running a validator myself but a pool might make more sense. Interested to hear more
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
Just to be sure you understood - the 5 months right now is how long to get your money back after choosing to unstake. You can stake for 1 month, elect to unstake and you get your money back in month 6, or you can stake for 7 months, elect to unstake then and have it back at month 12.
Ahhh, thanks for that clarification. I didn't understand that properly.
Avatar
@qwick745 two follow up questions.... 1) Once you unstake, does your validator continue to be eligible for selection in the consensus group during that 5 month cool down? and 2) how often are new consensus groups selected? Is that a predefined amount of time? blocks?
Avatar
1) No 2) 30 blocks +- 5 currently
👍 1
16:21
Well atleast that’s what is currently coded...
Avatar
Avatar
Ross
@qwick745 two follow up questions.... 1) Once you unstake, does your validator continue to be eligible for selection in the consensus group during that 5 month cool down? and 2) how often are new consensus groups selected? Is that a predefined amount of time? blocks?
From what I understand, once you start the cool down, you are pulled out of the group and you no longer are eligible to earn HNT.
Avatar
While it mostly seems to be that the plan for 1 is no as anthonyra mentioned, the timing of it is not set it stone. 250k blocks has been proposed, some of us are saying 100k blocks instead
Avatar
@Longtooth that's what I figured would be the case.
16:22
And are consensus groups set in stone at 30 block intervals? Or does that change a bit here and there?
Avatar
Ideally it’s 30 but there’s some wiggle room +5 my - above is incorrect to allow for state channel (things) (edited)
Avatar
@Anthonyra do you know if there is an API that returns something that will indicate when the epoch changes?
Avatar
There is one for consensus election haven’t looked what data it returns though.. when validators come online I assume that API will be used for the same thing but instead of current CG it’ll be validators
16:29
I’m actually finding it pretty hard to find it now...
Avatar
Yeah there is one for currently elected hotspots and hotspot elections, but neither are right on point
16:30
As best as I can tell, I would need to monitor each block for a "type": "consensus_group_v1" transaction (edited)
Avatar
That would be just every reward block
Avatar
really? That looks to be the transaction that creates the consensus group, no?
Avatar
The election closes with new members and the rewards are signed for the previous block
16:31
Correct, is that what you’re looking for?
Avatar
From Hotspot Elections API:
16:33
I'm looking for an easy way to tell when the consensus group changes, so that I can force something else to occur in cycle with it.
16:34
So I think I need to monitor each block, and if it includes a "consensus_group_v1" transaction then mark that block as the start of a new consensus group cycle. Sound about right?
👍 2
Avatar
Yep 👍🏻 (edited)
Avatar
whats up guys, new to helium but interested in hosting a validator node. Would you guys recommend I try to build a packet forwarder as documented on the staking page or just wait until testnet and build the validator?
Avatar
Definitely just wait for the testnet. But express your interest with the form on helium.com/stake
Avatar
Why is there a cooldowm period and why so long?
Avatar
Avatar
Rafikiwi
Why is there a cooldowm period and why so long?
Avatar
oh getya. Tha price increase is a good reason
07:27
thanks
Avatar
Deleted User 02/14/2021 7:31 AM
Morning all, can I use the following specs for a validator node: Intel Quad-Core i5-6500T up to 3.1G, 16GB DDR4, 512GB SSD?
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
Morning all, can I use the following specs for a validator node: Intel Quad-Core i5-6500T up to 3.1G, 16GB DDR4, 512GB SSD?
Yeah, specs are perfect. The issue is reliability. Reliability won't be as big of a deal at first without slashing. If/when slashing is implemented, you will lose HNT for every minute of downtime.
Avatar
Deleted User 02/14/2021 7:40 AM
Got it, thanks!
07:43
@neema.eth will I be able to run the validator on Windows?
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
@neema.eth will I be able to run the validator on Windows?
It should run just fine on WSL2 on Windows, but maybe not with that hardware.
07:53
WSL2 let's you run Linux Docker containers and is now the default way Docker works on Windows.
07:55
There is a performance hit with running Linux containers on top of Windows, I'm just not 100% sure how big the hit would be.
Avatar
Do we have a rough estimate on the number of people who signed up to be nodes?
Avatar
Avatar
Rafikiwi
Do we have a rough estimate on the number of people who signed up to be nodes?
Over 9000 Troll
😹 1
Avatar
ill rephrase 😄 Do we havea valid source on how many ppl signed up>
07:56
?
07:56
😄
Avatar
Avatar
Rafikiwi
ill rephrase 😄 Do we havea valid source on how many ppl signed up>
There’s over 4000 validators in the signup. How many actually become real validators I guess we’ll find out soon...
👀 4
Avatar
wow...
Avatar
Deleted User 02/14/2021 7:58 AM
@neema.eth will it be OK then if I install Ubuntu on my PC?
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
@neema.eth will it be OK then if I install Ubuntu on my PC?
Are you talking about running Ubuntu inside of Windows or using Ubuntu as your base OS? As your base OS, that should be good, again it goes back to reliability of your hardware, internet, etc.
Avatar
Deleted User 02/14/2021 8:02 AM
Got it, I was thinking of having Ubuntu as the base OS
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
Got it, I was thinking of having Ubuntu as the base OS
Running Ubuntu inside Windows and Docker both use WSL2 feature in Windows. That might work well enough, so might be worth trying before wiping that computer.
Avatar
Deleted User 02/14/2021 8:44 AM
I will try that out
08:44
Thanks!
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
There’s over 4000 validators in the signup. How many actually become real validators I guess we’ll find out soon...
So that would be 40MM HNT staked, so down to roughly 9% return if that many did. Would probably be a good idea to extend that graph on the helium/stake website as the max it goes out to is 10MM. I can see 40MM staking soon being tough as it would be ~60% of all circulating HNT, but I'm guessing we'll definitely be over 10MM quickly.
whiskey 1
Avatar
Avatar
qwick745
So that would be 40MM HNT staked, so down to roughly 9% return if that many did. Would probably be a good idea to extend that graph on the helium/stake website as the max it goes out to is 10MM. I can see 40MM staking soon being tough as it would be ~60% of all circulating HNT, but I'm guessing we'll definitely be over 10MM quickly.
My take on reading the tea leaves: a lot of interest, but how much of that interest meet the criteria of: 1) Having 10k HNT to stake And 2) Having the technical know how to run a publicly addressable validator server? For example, there are only ~600 wallets with over 10k HNT.
👍 1
Avatar
I think the network will easily and quickly have the 100 minimum validators the network wants and likely have closer to 500 validators within a month or two after launch. That would correlate to 5M staked.
11:15
Again, this is pure speculation.
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
My take on reading the tea leaves: a lot of interest, but how much of that interest meet the criteria of: 1) Having 10k HNT to stake And 2) Having the technical know how to run a publicly addressable validator server? For example, there are only ~600 wallets with over 10k HNT.
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 02/14/2021 1:04 PM
Just one quick take on the wallets with over 10k, I know a number of hosts who currently trade out daily that have stopped to become validators, and a number of folks rumbling about pools for validators so that number could be larger than 600
13:04
And then you have the large wallets who can run a number of validators if they choose
Avatar
there are a number of people who can run a lot, for sure
13:06
I would not overcount the big whale accounts, though
Avatar
Yeah, all of that is correct. I guess the only way to find out is to wait and see 😂
Avatar
the big binance accounts definitely are hiding some 10k+ personal wallets
Avatar
i doubt theres 600 wallets that can manage an erlang node
Avatar
the services can handle them, though
Avatar
i doubt theres 600 wallets that can run a docker instance 🙂
13:09
I mean, let me be clear: I fully expect the majority of nodes to be run by "professionals" of one stripe or another
13:10
the first time your average user realizes that they've lost a week of rewards because they forgot to update the version for a new chain var and they'll start eyeing Staking-as-a-Service pretty quickly
👍 1
Avatar
i will be available for your devops as a service needs
13:11
im 100 hnt an hr tho
Avatar
haha (edited)
13:13
this is gonna be fun, i was talking awhile back with amir about starting a blockchain education system, watching this get made is great learning material (edited)
Avatar
if you dig through our old stuff there are several basic blockchains in erlang
Avatar
awesome.. whats it comprised of now?
Avatar
oh I just meant as educational examples
13:14
it's still primarily in erlang
13:14
as you've experienced, there are various NIFs
Avatar
gotcha, yea thats preferrable.. I meant like as scalability challenges for a blockchain necessitate things
13:15
its a great learning time for all
13:15
and when you want to show something done right... helium is an example of that
❤️ 1
13:15
the whole damn thing is running on raspberry pi's
Avatar
don't remind me
Avatar
lol.. well as i understand it, thats from combining a half decent byzantine fault tolerant consensus program and a language designed to run thousands of processes the most efficiently, albeit not as fast as possible..
13:17
do you know.. we could add an accelerator to a raspberry pi.. have you thought of that?
13:18
like specifically gpu acceleration for the nif's in certain parts
Avatar
It’s the shitty network connections that really screw us
Avatar
roger
Avatar
The pi4 has quite good horsepower for such a little guy
Avatar
also the terrible disk bandwidth
☝️ 1
Avatar
indeed
13:19
yeah thats why i ended up liking those silly odroid c2's with the emmc
Avatar
Yea. The Pi4 compute module has emmc too
Avatar
power is another reason my nodes go down
13:19
people just unplug them..
13:20
i kinda wish it had a backup battery to start beeping when it was unplugged
Avatar
once we get to light gateways, I feel like solar+battery+cell backhaul setup will be far more doable
Avatar
good, cause im doing ai robotics and agtech is where i pictured helium years ago
13:21
im excited that its within grasp
Avatar
it's gonna be a while before we get there, but this is a solid first step
Avatar
we're basically there.. we just need to compile it
13:25
if you combine machines that can see where they're going and recognize what they're supposed to be doing, with low power wireless networks that can create huge communications areas... with the ability to validate cryptographically and next physically.. wonder whats it gonna look like then..
Avatar
Avatar
evan
once we get to light gateways, I feel like solar+battery+cell backhaul setup will be far more doable
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 02/14/2021 1:26 PM
Stealth gateways sound fun, people wondering where all these random boxes with solar panels are coming from
Avatar
again being totally clear: don't do that
13:27
ask people before you put equipment on their roof
👍 1
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 02/14/2021 1:29 PM
I meant getting permission maybe stealth was the wrong word, but just being able to drop boxes off without needing to mess with WiFi/power sounds fun (edited)
Avatar
rofl
13:37
please deploy ninja gateways responsibly
😆 1
Avatar
I’m deploying them by every geocache
Avatar
masterphasfallen 02/14/2021 3:21 PM
Any pools still available?
Avatar
Avatar
masterphasfallen
Any pools still available?
Deleted User 02/14/2021 3:55 PM
Check out #deleted-channel
15:56
They have what I think is a preliminary feasibility study
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/14/2021 4:15 PM
Patrium is exploring interest to form a Helium Validator Pool. Based on the number of people interested, we expect to have 3-5 validators to start out with. Shares would be in the pool, not a specific validator. This helps to smooth the earnings curve based on whether each validator is picked for the consensus group each round. Shares in the...
Avatar
Quick question, Will HIP-25 reduce the amount of Network traffic to/from the hotspot? If yes, will it be significant? Right now a hotspot is using double digit GB's per month which makes it quite expensive to provide internet through a mobile hotspot.
Avatar
Didn't know it uses that much
Avatar
what's the approximate eta for testnet and validator setup guide
18:02
is aws a hard requirement or can we do a vultr.com vps ?
Avatar
Avatar
MmmmYah
is aws a hard requirement or can we do a vultr.com vps ?
no AWS requirement. Simply a suggested instance size.
Avatar
Question: does each validator instance pay licensing fee to semtech?
Avatar
Avatar
neema.eth
no AWS requirement. Simply a suggested instance size.
ok thanks - hope you guys can come up with a vultr.com setup guide (it's a popular platform for other staking coin or masternode runners)
Avatar
Avatar
richard Z
Question: does each validator instance pay licensing fee to semtech?
doubtful, validators won't be doing anything LoRa related.
Avatar
Avatar
MmmmYah
ok thanks - hope you guys can come up with a vultr.com setup guide (it's a popular platform for other staking coin or masternode runners)
there will be detailed Docker instructions. If you can piece together how to setup a Vultr instance with Docker, you should be good to go.
Avatar
ok cool thanks
Avatar
Avatar
Cram
Quick question, Will HIP-25 reduce the amount of Network traffic to/from the hotspot? If yes, will it be significant? Right now a hotspot is using double digit GB's per month which makes it quite expensive to provide internet through a mobile hotspot.
Not immediately but eventually yes. The intention is that a service will run on validators that gateways can use to periodically request things from the blockchain. That way hotspots themselves don’t need to keep a copy of the ledger and sync with the rest of the chain
Avatar
we can immediately raise the staleness limit, which will cost us pocs at the margins
👍 1
18:51
but will cut usage substantially
Avatar
EngineerAiTool 02/14/2021 9:35 PM
How much disk space will a Validator need?
Avatar
we're estimating that 256 GB should last the year, but we're not absolutely certain
Avatar
EngineerAiTool 02/14/2021 9:45 PM
I'll try to get at least 512 gb then thanks
Avatar
Avatar
Cram
Quick question, Will HIP-25 reduce the amount of Network traffic to/from the hotspot? If yes, will it be significant? Right now a hotspot is using double digit GB's per month which makes it quite expensive to provide internet through a mobile hotspot.
Run your remote cellular nodes as LoRa packet forwarders, not as Helium full blockchain syncing nodes. That should decrease your bandwidth usage. No need to wait for HIP-25 to do this. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
linagee
Run your remote cellular nodes as LoRa packet forwarders, not as Helium full blockchain syncing nodes. That should decrease your bandwidth usage. No need to wait for HIP-25 to do this. (edited)
Or get a 3g unlimited plan for $10 a month 🤷🏼‍♂️
Avatar
wish.com^
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
Or get a 3g unlimited plan for $10 a month 🤷🏼‍♂️
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/15/2021 9:17 AM
who has a $10 plan (edited)
Avatar
T-Mobile
09:18
A Helium Hotspot located in Cleveland, OH, United States, belonging to account 13s2SCJbWP9ZmGW5uULCehV7EJRDdYqLrmNCQCtoj5Y1RDerZAq
09:18
This is on that
Avatar
Can also confirm that T-Mo $10 plan works great
💯 4
👍 2
Avatar
+1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/15/2021 9:41 AM
Nice. Can you use the same plan across multiple hotspots (data hotspots not helium hotspots) or do you have to have one $10 plan for each
09:41
I would imagine the latter but I can dream 🌠
Avatar
Lol one each
Avatar
I just checked the T-mobile site and can't find a plan that cheap. Did you get a special rate or use a code?
Avatar
I have it the Tmobile plan for one of mine and it was listed as 15. But you get 5 off for auto paying with a cc
Avatar
Need a more affordable data plan for your connected devices? T-Mobile customers can get 500MB for smart watches, tablets or hotspots, starting at $5/mo.
Avatar
I have a couple more questions, probably not the right channel. Can I DM you?
👍 2
Avatar
Is there any benefit to geographical distribution of validators? Latency or otherwise? And does latency or other factors impact being selected in an epoch?
Avatar
Avatar
usurper
Is there any benefit to geographical distribution of validators? Latency or otherwise? And does latency or other factors impact being selected in an epoch?
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/15/2021 11:11 AM
insofar as they are in different data centers, yes
11:11
just for redundancy/diversification if one center goes down or has issues for whatever reason
Avatar
Right.
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/15/2021 11:12 AM
I don't believe latency etc have effects on being elected but they do on how long you stay in the group. Someone with more specific expertise can fill in any gaps there that might exist.
Avatar
That's interesting.
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/15/2021 11:13 AM
though FWIW I really can't think of any reason why there would be any distinction there after going to validators as they will more or less all be on industrial grade cloud infrastructure with high uptimes & compute
Avatar
There is no such thing for Germany.. (10$ plan) (edited)
Avatar
yeah, spreading out data centers is more important than locality
11:16
if the network gets really busy latency can become an issue for performance
11:17
our original testnet was 35 nodes spread out across the world and could get (relatively empty) blocks every ten seconds or so
Avatar
Few packet forwarder questions not related to HNT earnings. I set up a forwarder already and it’s synced and operational. This was for fun and prep work for validators. Question 1. Do we know if I can convert this current PF to a validator on the test net or main net? Q2. Will we be staking the 10k HNT on the test net? I was playing around with GUI’s on my setup and decided it wasn’t worth it. Trying to decide if i want to backup the swarm and snapshot to move it to a new instance or not.
Avatar
Avatar
linagee
Run your remote cellular nodes as LoRa packet forwarders, not as Helium full blockchain syncing nodes. That should decrease your bandwidth usage. No need to wait for HIP-25 to do this. (edited)
I am not sure I'm understanding the concept here. How can that be done?
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
Or get a 3g unlimited plan for $10 a month 🤷🏼‍♂️
I didn't know they exist. Do you have a link? I found unlimited machine-2-machine sim cards at a max speed of 512 kbps. I am in the process of testing that out. Is that the same thing?
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
Can also confirm that T-Mo $10 plan works great
I can't seem to find it. Do you have a link?
Avatar
Avatar
Cram
I can't seem to find it. Do you have a link?
Need a more affordable data plan for your connected devices? T-Mobile customers can get 500MB for smart watches, tablets or hotspots, starting at $5/mo.
Avatar
Unfortunately they don’t provide good coverage near me 😢 but that would be an ideal plan
Avatar
Thank you! I did see that it but it has a 500 MB limit?
Avatar
Dunno. My friend set it up. It is unlimited tho
Avatar
I guess it is :"UNLIMITED high-speed data for watches & wearables"
Avatar
I’m using the 2gb option, but it’s actually unlimited
Avatar
Thanks!! Any hardware recomendations?
Avatar
are there any staking-as-a-service providers e.g. Bison Trails, Chorus One, Staked, etc. that are planning to support validators on helium?
👍🏻 1
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
I’m using the 2gb option, but it’s actually unlimited
Fine print: "Data: High-speed data up to allotment then max 128Kbps speeds."
Avatar
Avatar
Cram
Fine print: "Data: High-speed data up to allotment then max 128Kbps speeds."
Perfect for Helium!
19:12
19:13
That’s the modem I use, there may be cheaper available
Avatar
Avatar
Munchee
are there any staking-as-a-service providers e.g. Bison Trails, Chorus One, Staked, etc. that are planning to support validators on helium?
It would be great if this was an option when HIP-25 goes live. I'd definitely use a service like this than try and navigate the technicals involved with setting up my own validator. I have the 10K HNT, just concerned I won't be able to set up a validator without a good step-by-step tutorial
Avatar
DragonBallCrypto 02/16/2021 3:12 AM
Hi guys
03:13
just want to ask for more information concerning the new validator system that has been added to Helium
03:13
is there wasy to join a Validator pool, if you dont have the full 10,000 HNT to be a validator node?
Avatar
@DragonBallCrypto There's one currently in the works on #deleted-channel but I'm sure there's more to follow. The validator system is still a "work in progress" the testnet is scheduled to potentially startup this week but no firm dates yet. After testnet operation than they will be introduced to mainnet
Avatar
I applied to be a validator, are they going to contact me by email if I am selected? How to get status?
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
Perfect for Helium!
Thanks @Bertie - I have a hotspot sold by Verizon and is included a one line in the family plan. Is the one you mentioned better (just learning.)
Avatar
Avatar
Milind
Thanks @Bertie - I have a hotspot sold by Verizon and is included a one line in the family plan. Is the one you mentioned better (just learning.)
The main attraction of the T-Mobile plan is price, if you have a reliable mobile hotspot on a family plan using that’s probably the move.
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
The main attraction of the T-Mobile plan is price, if you have a reliable mobile hotspot on a family plan using that’s probably the move.
Thank you!
👍🏼 1
Avatar
Avatar
Milind
I applied to be a validator, are they going to contact me by email if I am selected? How to get status?
we'll be contacting everyone who applied for testing soon
👍 6
07:41
for the mainnet, it depends on how well the testnet work goes
Avatar
Evan, how does one stake in the testnet?
Avatar
Avatar
usurper
Evan, how does one stake in the testnet?
this info is coming soon (edited)
Avatar
Okay, sorry for pressing.
Avatar
np. we'll have more info soon
09:30
if you've filled in the form, we have your email and you'll get an email with instructions when the testnet goes live
09:30
we'll probably batch it
09:31
but we have a critical path person caught in the texas snowpocalypse
🌨️ 1
❄️ 1
😣 2
09:31
so we'll see how much delay there is
Avatar
Avatar
Munchee
are there any staking-as-a-service providers e.g. Bison Trails, Chorus One, Staked, etc. that are planning to support validators on helium?
We'd love intros and community driven pushes to those folks. I'm sure they want to hear about demand and interest. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
We'd love intros and community driven pushes to those folks. I'm sure they want to hear about demand and interest. (edited)
@Austin|Solana
Avatar
Austin|Solana 02/16/2021 10:31 AM
Hi there
10:32
Happy to help out
👍🏼 1
Avatar
Avatar
Munchee
are there any staking-as-a-service providers e.g. Bison Trails, Chorus One, Staked, etc. that are planning to support validators on helium?
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/16/2021 10:34 AM
patrium seems to be getting a lot of attention for pooling. I know it's not an institution lol but it's community built! 🙂
Avatar
I assume this question has been answered many times - but why is a home internet connection not recommended for staking? Is this a subjective, lowest common denominator sort of statement? Or will steady gigabit fiber work when ports are configured properly?
Avatar
if you have good quality commercial-grade internet and know your way around a firewall, go for it
11:35
if you're going to slap a validator behind 20/5 comcast and some wonky router, it will not go well
😆 1
Avatar
haha fair enough! Thanks - that was my assumption
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
@DragonBallCrypto There's one currently in the works on #deleted-channel but I'm sure there's more to follow. The validator system is still a "work in progress" the testnet is scheduled to potentially startup this week but no firm dates yet. After testnet operation than they will be introduced to mainnet
mindstorms6 02/16/2021 5:29 PM
We’re also building “validators as a service” - and we’re also planning on supporting partial staking as well. Ex-AWS and ex-Microsoft devs - just trying to make it easy to participate. Planning to run in AWS and will manage the entire lifecycle and monitoring of the validator, upgrades etc. also will do our best to make sure it’s deployed across regions to prevent clustering. If you’re interested or have comments or suggestions feel free to drop your thoughts: heliumvalidators.com
💯 4
👍 1
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/16/2021 6:06 PM
Nice.
Avatar
Avatar
mindstorms6
We’re also building “validators as a service” - and we’re also planning on supporting partial staking as well. Ex-AWS and ex-Microsoft devs - just trying to make it easy to participate. Planning to run in AWS and will manage the entire lifecycle and monitoring of the validator, upgrades etc. also will do our best to make sure it’s deployed across regions to prevent clustering. If you’re interested or have comments or suggestions feel free to drop your thoughts: heliumvalidators.com
Deleted User 02/16/2021 7:35 PM
Site doesn't work
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
Site doesn't work
Avatar
Deleted User 02/16/2021 7:40 PM
Oh, thanks. I had a typo.
Avatar
Avatar
mindstorms6
We’re also building “validators as a service” - and we’re also planning on supporting partial staking as well. Ex-AWS and ex-Microsoft devs - just trying to make it easy to participate. Planning to run in AWS and will manage the entire lifecycle and monitoring of the validator, upgrades etc. also will do our best to make sure it’s deployed across regions to prevent clustering. If you’re interested or have comments or suggestions feel free to drop your thoughts: heliumvalidators.com
SLA planned?
Avatar
Avatar
mindstorms6
We’re also building “validators as a service” - and we’re also planning on supporting partial staking as well. Ex-AWS and ex-Microsoft devs - just trying to make it easy to participate. Planning to run in AWS and will manage the entire lifecycle and monitoring of the validator, upgrades etc. also will do our best to make sure it’s deployed across regions to prevent clustering. If you’re interested or have comments or suggestions feel free to drop your thoughts: heliumvalidators.com
I filled out my info and clicked the submit button, but never got a confirmation that anything was submitted
Avatar
Same
Avatar
@jiceman Validator convo continuing here.
👍 1
10:28
@jiceman You're right. All you need to do to become a validator is to stake and be available to participate in CGs.
10:28
I just wasn't certain if your question was about the blockchain in general.
Avatar
Avatar
jerm
I just wasn't certain if your question was about the blockchain in general.
What do you mean? Is there another aspect that makes the chain permissioned? Oh, are you saying that it is not permissioned to be a validator. But, to be a hotspot node that writes transactions, it is still permissioned? I need to think about that, but see the point. But the hotspots will no longer be blockchain nodes themselves, right? However, their indirect access to the blockchain will be permissioned. If I understand. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
jiceman
What do you mean? Is there another aspect that makes the chain permissioned? Oh, are you saying that it is not permissioned to be a validator. But, to be a hotspot node that writes transactions, it is still permissioned? I need to think about that, but see the point. But the hotspots will no longer be blockchain nodes themselves, right? However, their indirect access to the blockchain will be permissioned. If I understand. (edited)
Yes, that's getting closer. To be a validator and earn rewards for participating in Consensus Groups, you only need to have a proof-of-stake. To be a "hotspot" and receive PoC (Coverage) rewards, however, your node must be granted permission to operate, which requires a signed assert_gateway transaction on the blockchain. That transaction has to be signed by a specific key (or keys) held by .. the DeWi org(?). It's held by someone, privately. (edited)
10:36
So some operations on the chain are permissioned and some are not.
10:36
It's a hybrid.
👍 1
Avatar
I have heard the term public-permissioned used about some blockchians (usually if all can read but not all can write). For example, Sovrin for identity. Anyway, good to note that is not fully public
Avatar
For those interested in validators as a service, we're also working on something over here at Argon: https://www.argon.build We have experience running Helium Miners for gateways and are ready for the validator testnet!
Argon runs helium validator nodes as a service
👍 6
Avatar
May I pls be on testnet?
Avatar
I'm not hiding it from you all
🦊 1
15:56
currently in code review, reviewing docs and stuff (edited)
👍🏼 2
Avatar
@Deleted User I got one of your poker chips. It's a prized possession
Avatar
Avatar
Matthew
@Deleted User I got one of your poker chips. It's a prized possession
Deleted User 02/17/2021 4:09 PM
Haha. Nice!
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
May I pls be on testnet?
just sign up here: helium.com/stake
Avatar
Avatar
cyborg
just sign up here: helium.com/stake
(I did but my email doesn’t correlate to my Discord handle)
Avatar
you're set
Avatar
Avatar
evan
we'll be contacting everyone who applied for testing soon
Does it matter which country the validator IP is in?
05:37
Also what kind of CPU / memory req are we looking at?
Avatar
Avatar
miqueet
Also what kind of CPU / memory req are we looking at?
An aws t2.large is probably good enough, should give some idea of the spec
Avatar
thanks @capcom . Any idea on storage? https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/t2/
Low-cost, burstable general purpose Amazon EC2 instances
Avatar
Any chance there will be a one click AMI? 😺
Avatar
lol if only i could read.
Avatar
Avatar
Bertie
Any chance there will be a one click AMI? 😺
Im sure someone will make one if we don’t
Avatar
and does 1 a single person need to own 10k HNT and stake them for this to work? or is there going to be more of a trustless solution?
Avatar
Avatar
miqueet
and does 1 a single person need to own 10k HNT and stake them for this to work? or is there going to be more of a trustless solution?
Will probably be one wallet at launch
Avatar
deasydoesit 02/18/2021 6:09 AM
You can make a launch template with all the specs
Avatar
Sorry if I’m out of the loop here but is there are a target launch date here?
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Sorry if I’m out of the loop here but is there are a target launch date here?
Nothing specific. Metrics are successful testnet and at least 100 validators staked and ready to roll.
Avatar
I’m not too worried about the latter. There are enough people here that could stake 10+ themselves whenever there’s a thumbs up.
Avatar
Has there been talk about penalties for a validator being offline (I'm taking this idea from what I have read about ETH staking)? I'm wondering about moving a validator between VPS providers or doing reboots for upgrades, etc.
08:11
Or is the "penalty" just that if the validator is unreachable it can't participate in block creation?
Avatar
there's no current slashing
08:16
if you are offline, you can't get elected
08:16
thus you can't get rewards
08:17
current restart downtime is pretty low, I wouldn't worry about it
08:17
even with a relatively small pool, you'd have to get pretty unlucky
Avatar
ya, cool. ETH staking was explicit about this so thought I would ask. I'd like to be able to throw a VPS up quickly then move if I want to (this is where a DNS entry helps, but there will still be some switchover time)
Avatar
do you think it would be possible to optionally set a "reward_address" in the staking transaction? that could help on two fronts: 1) it would give people running services flexibility to collect the rewards and do some percentage sharing off-chain 2) it would allow people with "aged" wallets to avoid "new HNT" coming in and thus simplify their record keeping (HNT in that wallet could remain "long-term" without worrying about mixing with "fresh HNT")
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/18/2021 9:07 AM
Does someone want to take on the task of gathering all staking-related resources in one place? Even if it's just a google doc for the time being?
👍 1
09:07
Feels like people are working on a lot and it would be good to have it all in the same place.
Avatar
Avatar
Matthew
do you think it would be possible to optionally set a "reward_address" in the staking transaction? that could help on two fronts: 1) it would give people running services flexibility to collect the rewards and do some percentage sharing off-chain 2) it would allow people with "aged" wallets to avoid "new HNT" coming in and thus simplify their record keeping (HNT in that wallet could remain "long-term" without worrying about mixing with "fresh HNT")
I would rather not do this ad-hoc per earning entity
09:31
I know capcom wants everything off-chain, but I would like to do a minimal sort of proxy account eventually
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I would rather not do this ad-hoc per earning entity
You mean you see HIP24 being a solution to this rather than having a reward_address field particular to staking?
👍🏼 1
Avatar
I would like to see something like 24 but simpler
09:38
24 is also kind of ad hoc and gateway specific
09:39
I would like to see it distilled to its essence
09:39
I can type up what I mean later
Avatar
GitHub Gist: instantly share code, notes, and snippets.
10:18
@ericmaxwell ^ also. a different design direction for HIP-24 like functionality
Avatar
That would make my life a lot easier
Avatar
This is actually really similar to the approach I'm taking, minus the voting capability. Consensus seemed to be voting would overcomplicate for the average hotspot owner, particularly once hotspots are much cheaper, but I can definitely see the value for teams running validators (edited)
Avatar
Yeah this does seem very close to what @ericmaxwell is working on, but with a bit of added complexity. HIP 24 is currently being implemented as a rewards split and not an ownership split
Avatar
there's some incoherence in that brief proposal
11:20
I don't have time this week to review the current 24 PR
11:20
but I'll do my best to catch up early next week
Avatar
I think ownership splitting is the better way to do it honestly, I'm going to try building it out both ways and let other people decide which to implement (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ericmaxwell
I think ownership splitting is the better way to do it honestly, I'm going to try building it out both ways and let other people decide which to implement (edited)
agreed, OT for here but my vote has always been for ownership split, everything else can be done off-chain
Avatar
ownership meaning actual control of the hotspot or ownership meaning reward splitting?
Avatar
ownership meaning irrevocable, revocable reward splitting should be a python / js / bash script
Avatar
yes agreed, and that was general consensus for #hip-24-reward-splitting
13:00
motion to archive this channel in favor of #testnet-ops? conversation getting split and this is ostensibly approved
helium 3
jamiedubs pinned a message to this channel. 02/18/2021 1:01 PM
Avatar
Avatar
jamiedubs
motion to archive this channel in favor of #testnet-ops? conversation getting split and this is ostensibly approved
I would rather have the conversation split. #hip-25-validators for conversation on economics, split ownership discussion etc and #testnet-ops for the technical discussion of getting the validator code completed and tested. This is just my opinion.
👍🏼 1
👍 1
Avatar
Do I understand that a proxy account would have to own the staked HNT but then the earnings could be spread? (edited)
Avatar
yeah, something like that
14:04
I got a lot of good internal feedback about it, I need to check it against HIP 24 and we'll see what happens in the longer run
Avatar
It won't fit exactly what I was hoping for, but it still seems like a great feature.
14:06
By setting rewardee, I was hoping that customer could stake and maintain ownership of their HNT but trust me with the rewards only. That would make it easy for me to implement pooling and/or automate payouts after a % fee (edited)
Avatar
remember that there is no overstaking initially
14:07
I feel like this feature would make that easily possible
Avatar
If that's the case, then that's good for me!
Avatar
I second @Matthew's request for a separate reward address from the staking address
Avatar
I can't tell you when or if it would go in, but there is clearly interest in something like it
Avatar
The proxy account thing is interesting. Lots of use cases for that. (edited)
Avatar
I'll talk it over with the team. is it a complete blocker for pools?
14:10
or just makes things harder
Avatar
Well convincing someone to turn over 100K HNT to run validators for them is not an easy task, especially when right now we're all "startups" in the HNT world. They want some security, and I don't blame them. Alternatively they stake and get rewards, and then have to pay the validator operator, and if they don't, then the validator gets shut down.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
evan
or just makes things harder
The main use-case is I think that most people that want to provide validator services want to include a % on HNT earned as a fee but avoid requiring deposit of the stake itself. (edited)
Avatar
YEah that
Avatar
I mean, just turn it off?
Avatar
yes, but we still lose a month's payment. But you are correct, that's the easy solution.
14:12
Pay within a day or its turned off.
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I mean, just turn it off?
Yes but its easier for us to automate or make payouts self serve
👍 1
Avatar
Or week, or whatever the payment shcedule is
Avatar
Requiring the user to send us the HNT periodically can create friction
14:13
its workable, but its easier for us to automate for them then to ask them to take an action
14:14
I'll talk it over with folks. I'm not sure that it will make it in, though (edited)
Avatar
And its less risk because, let's say a validator pool or operator is running 100 validators. That's 1M HNT, or $4M that they are holding for other people
Avatar
Also, just from a personal taxation standpoint, I try to maitnain "aged" wallets so I don't want to mix fresh earnings with my stakes if I can avoid it
Avatar
Makes them a BIGGER target than if the stakers hold it themselves. Then you have lots of people holding less HNT rather than 1 entity holding a LOT
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
@DragonBallCrypto There's one currently in the works on #deleted-channel but I'm sure there's more to follow. The validator system is still a "work in progress" the testnet is scheduled to potentially startup this week but no firm dates yet. After testnet operation than they will be introduced to mainnet
DragonBallCrypto 02/18/2021 2:15 PM
Thank you for the update
Avatar
there is a lot of stuff that we'd like to do around this
Avatar
My ask is simple: Optional reward address.
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I'll talk it over with folks. I'm not sure that it will make it in, though (edited)
Thanks. I realize you guys have to prioritize accordingly. We can make the service work without this feature, but I think it would be a big enabler for validator service providers.
Avatar
If its absent, then the staking wallet gets rewards. If it's present, then pay earnings from validator to that address. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Ross
My ask is simple: Optional reward address.
I understand the ask, I'm just saying that it feels bad to do when we would have to deactivate it in a few months when something better came along
14:17
I'd rather not launch with something I know I am going to have to undo later
14:17
I'd rather reprioritize the better solution so it happens sooner
Avatar
Not sure why we would have to undo it, but perhaps I'm missing something.
14:17
You mean proxy accounts?
Avatar
yeah, or something like them
Avatar
But that doesn't change the situation where an operator runs a validator for someone.
14:18
Most other blockchains' validators allow a separate earnings address. This isn't an unusual ask (or so I thought).
Avatar
I don't see how your case isn't easily expressible with proxy accounts (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I don't see how your case isn't easily expressible with proxy accounts (edited)
For earnings its fine, but problem occurs at de-stake/shutdown
14:19
I guess you could do majority control
Avatar
eg, I set one up with myself as the owner, and you as a 1% recipient
Avatar
and the staker could vote to shut it down
Avatar
once you see that transaction, you start it up
14:20
the staker has total control anyway
Avatar
ok I see your point now
Avatar
unstake doesn't require validator agreement
Avatar
Interesting
Avatar
I mean, you could lose the key, hopefully you're keeping better track of your owner key
Avatar
But you'd still need to move the stake into the proxy account, no?
Avatar
the required signing for stake is just to guarantee that you have one running, and to facilitate services
14:21
no
14:21
the stake is just a note, it stops being in any account anywhere (edited)
14:22
it's kept track of in the validator itself (edited)
Avatar
Where does the stake go when unstaked?
Avatar
we just note it down
Avatar
Avatar
evan
we just note it down
I don't follow. Someone has to get the stake back.
Avatar
i think your account goes from owning HNT to owning a validator with such-and-such HNT staked?
Avatar
Right, but when the validator is unstaked, where does the 10K HNT go?
Avatar
we make a note to return N HNT after T blocks to account A (edited)
Avatar
to the staking address, right?
Avatar
the owning address, which might have changed
Avatar
right, ok
14:28
In the meantime, is the owning address (e.g., by default the address from which the original stake came) the address that earns rewards? Or can you specify a different address? I see this as two issues. I guess I would want to be able to stake from one wallet, and designate another wallet for rewards. If that designated wallet happened to be a proxy wallet, then rewards would be split according to that proxy wallet. If it was a regular wallet, then all rewards would go to that wallet.
14:28
In that way you wouldn't need to "undo" the feature in the future, just build on it.
Avatar
Could a Hashed Timelock Transaction be utilized in a way to achieve the goal? There might be a need for slight change not sure if the address for the HTLC could be set to a validator currently but it would allow the person putting HNT in the validator to retrieve their HNT after a pre-determined set of time (edited)
Avatar
So @evan, with a proxy address, whats the flow supposed to be? Create a proxy address with single owner (our customer) and multi-recipient (validator provider 5%, our customer 95% let's say). Then they transfer HNT to the address, stake it, and the recipients get their slices? When they unstake, "proxy address owner" maintains full ownership and can send the HNT wherever. Is that roughly right?
Avatar
early days, but something like that
Avatar
Avatar
Ross
In the meantime, is the owning address (e.g., by default the address from which the original stake came) the address that earns rewards? Or can you specify a different address? I see this as two issues. I guess I would want to be able to stake from one wallet, and designate another wallet for rewards. If that designated wallet happened to be a proxy wallet, then rewards would be split according to that proxy wallet. If it was a regular wallet, then all rewards would go to that wallet.
ok, I can see that
14:31
I have to go, I'll talk it over with folks tomorrow
👍 4
Avatar
Avatar
pharkmillups
Feels like people are working on a lot and it would be good to have it all in the same place.
pharkmillups 02/18/2021 6:05 PM
Just using this to capture anything useful until they end up in a more official place. Please add and modify accordingly. Validators/Staking as a Service Providers Companies who will run validators for you for a fee. heliumvalidators.com argon.build Models/Projections Basic return projecti...
❤️ 3
pharkmillups pinned a message to this channel. 02/18/2021 6:05 PM
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/18/2021 6:05 PM
Mainly so I can keep track of things. 🙂
Avatar
wow my sheet made the list! thank you for the honor @pharkmillups
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/18/2021 6:52 PM
Ha.
Avatar
https://www.argon.build/ – glad to see the noble gas names kicking again
Argon runs helium validator nodes as a service
helium 2
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/19/2021 6:19 AM
I have a hard time not calling it Aragon
Avatar
@jamiedubs is this guy in the discord
Avatar
no idea
Avatar
Avatar
Raf
@jamiedubs is this guy in the discord
me?
🤣 1
Avatar
lol there you go
Avatar
Rustynickelus (NicolasNotLatifi) 02/19/2021 9:44 AM
Hey everyone, so staking through a validator isn’t currently functional on the Helium network right? It’s just the HIP has been approved. Is there an expected date or time frame for implementation of the proposal?
Avatar
implementation is underway
09:45
testnet is soon
09:45
sign up for notifications
Avatar
Rustynickelus (NicolasNotLatifi) 02/19/2021 9:47 AM
Sign up where?
Avatar
helium.com/stake
Avatar
Rustynickelus (NicolasNotLatifi) 02/19/2021 9:50 AM
Ok I already did that awhile ago
09:50
Thanks for the info
09:50
Will the individuals that filled out that form be noticed to participate in the test net?
Avatar
if you put in a valid email, yes
Avatar
Rustynickelus (NicolasNotLatifi) 02/19/2021 9:54 AM
Awesome, thank you
Avatar
I've still have people's info that signed up via the Google form, but if anyone else wants to sign up to be notified when our (Patrium's) pool goes live, you can do so at www.HeliumRising.com
👍 1
Avatar
Is the general consensus that most/all of the validators are going to be run in the cloud? Ive read its "not recommended" for home connections, anyone going that route?
11:39
Didnt seem too difficult to get it running on a gaming pc in the background right? 🤔
11:40
Any have PC specs for what will/would be needed to run it yourself with hardware?
Avatar
Avatar
Grady137
Is the general consensus that most/all of the validators are going to be run in the cloud? Ive read its "not recommended" for home connections, anyone going that route?
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/20/2021 11:41 AM
it's not prohibited it's just discouraged. So it really is ultimately up to the individual.
Avatar
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡
it's not prohibited it's just discouraged. So it really is ultimately up to the individual.
So basically as long as a person could match or exceed the intel processor and 8GB RAM of the T2 large at home they "should" be good to go?
11:44
notwithstanding the internet connection aspects
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/20/2021 11:44 AM
*Not technical advice "Yes."
11:45
Downtime of validators (in small numbers) doesnt really have an impact with the functioning of the consensus group; it would just reduce the individual validators earnings right?
11:46
In theory
Avatar
Would it also work to run a Helium Validator node on https://aws.amazon.com/de/ec2/pricing/on-demand/
Erhalten Sie AWS On-Demand Instances zu On-Demand-Preisen, einer von vier Buchungsoptionen, die Sie für unterschiedliche Instance-Typen nutzen können. Es gibt keine Mindestgebühr und Sie zahlen nur für den tatsächlich in Anspruch genommenen Service.
👍🏼 1
Avatar
Avatar
Muuvr2
Would it also work to run a Helium Validator node on https://aws.amazon.com/de/ec2/pricing/on-demand/
Yes, AWS is the main recommended configuration (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
Yes, AWS is the main recommended configuration (edited)
Thanks is it complicated to set it up? What would be the expected return? And costs?
Avatar
Yes, I wouldn't recommend trying for now if you're not comfortable with code, AWS and a command line
12:41
Expected returns are pinned in this channel
12:41
And costs remain to be seen
Avatar
Apologies if this has been covered, I didn't find it in the chat history. I don't understand the 5 month cooldown. It seems to me it could be either one of these: - I stake 10K on day 1. I am not allowed to withdraw the stake until at least 5 months from day 1. After this time, I can withdraw instantly if I want to. - I stake 10K on dat 1. At day 100 I withdraw the stake. 5 months from day 100, the withdraw happens. - Something else I haven't thought of?
Avatar
option b
Avatar
Ok, so I can unstake at any time, but the cooldown period can be thought of as how long it take the withdrawl to complete.
15:52
To be clear, I'm not going to treat this as a liquid investment, just making sure I understand the constraints.
Avatar
Avatar
krby
To be clear, I'm not going to treat this as a liquid investment, just making sure I understand the constraints.
You got it!
Avatar
Avatar
Muuvr2
Thanks is it complicated to set it up? What would be the expected return? And costs?
I went from scratch to running 8 miners in parallel (without Docker) in under an hour, and I didn't even know how to use the Erlang build tooling. Incidentally, one of the tools was written by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Aleynikov. I doubt anyone here knew that. We used to work at the same company. I heard he's a really nice guy. (edited)
06:37
Execute and control OS processes from Erlang/OTP. Contribute to saleyn/erlexec development by creating an account on GitHub.
06:41
P.S. If anyone of you HNT whales want to donate for his assistance, here is the info from his website: http://www.aleynikov.org/ Send your donation using PayPal to serge@aleynikov.org Send BitCoin currency to address: 12pt8TcoMWMkF6iY66VJQk95ntdN4pFihg Mail your check payable to "Marino, Tortorella & Boyle, P.C.": Attn: Aleynikov Defense Fund Marino, Tortorella & Boyle, P.C. 437 Southern Boulevard Chatham, NJ 07928 (edited)
Avatar
Wanted to check in to make sure I didn’t miss anything😂. I haven’t seen an email to join testnet are we still in a holding pattern? Totally fine just curious?
Avatar
Avatar
BigSkyTech
Wanted to check in to make sure I didn’t miss anything😂. I haven’t seen an email to join testnet are we still in a holding pattern? Totally fine just curious?
Never mind pursued through the prior posts!
07:34
😅
Avatar
Avatar
evan
you would need to own 2/3+1
Thinking more about this 2/3+1 attack this morning... Making sure I understand... Initially the CG is selected from pool of Validators (16 from total number), then consensus is 2/3+1 of the CG (11 of 16). Correct?
Avatar
Adam | No Stable No Fun 02/21/2021 7:46 AM
Where did the 830 validators come from in the spreadsheet. Do we have reason to believe that’s the number that will be on the network?
Avatar
So to me that means you don't need 2/3+1 but rather 11 Validators (then you just wait for them to all be selected to CG)
Avatar
Avatar
geophokus
Thinking more about this 2/3+1 attack this morning... Making sure I understand... Initially the CG is selected from pool of Validators (16 from total number), then consensus is 2/3+1 of the CG (11 of 16). Correct?
it probably won't be 16 past the first day
Avatar
Oh so we're increasing CG probably?
Avatar
the 2/3+1 is from the consensus group
07:48
yes, a size increase is a priority
Avatar
I noticed a problem with the "Helium Validator Rewards Forecasting" sheet last night, it has "validator onboarding" as Apr 1, 2020, not April 1, 2021 this affects the forecast because the halving is happening much sooner than the spreadsheet says. (edited)
Avatar
Got it. Because yeah, in PoS terms if we embed, hardcode, a number like 16 then we have fixed the "network weight" very low and you only need 11 (if you're saying supermajority is necessary)
Avatar
A big part of the push to do validators is to increase the CG size substantially
👍 1
07:51
16 is about the max we think we could get away with on atrociously networked raspberry pi’s
Avatar
I would love to get over 100 personally, but I don't know about the network or cpu scaling
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I would love to get over 100 personally, but I don't know about the network or cpu scaling
Got it. But if we do have this fixed number then you can still plan on running 2/3+1 and you will get all of those selected before long. For the 100 example you'd run 67 Validators. That's a lot of HNT/fiat. Then there is limited return on investment because what are you going to do, shut down the network? No. Maybe prioritize the packet transfers??? Give yourself a larger mint??
07:54
I think I'm following your logic here. Bigger CG more secure.
07:55
And not just more secure but more reliable
Avatar
Avatar
geophokus
Got it. But if we do have this fixed number then you can still plan on running 2/3+1 and you will get all of those selected before long. For the 100 example you'd run 67 Validators. That's a lot of HNT/fiat. Then there is limited return on investment because what are you going to do, shut down the network? No. Maybe prioritize the packet transfers??? Give yourself a larger mint??
You’d need to run 2/3 of the pool to ever have a chance of pulling this off
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
You’d need to run 2/3 of the pool to ever have a chance of pulling this off
Oh. I'm not understanding that correctly then. I thought you needed 2/3+1 of the CG. Thank you for clarifying.
Avatar
you do, but the random chance numbers are pretty daunting
Avatar
You do, but because the CG is 100 nodes elected randomly out of the pool, you’d need to also dominate the pool
07:57
So if that’s 1000 nodes for example it starts to get very expensive
Avatar
67 validators is expensive, but if there are even 500 nodes you have a poor chance of getting them all elected at once
07:58
so you'd need many more to have a realistic chance of some subset being elected
Avatar
Avatar
geophokus
Got it. But if we do have this fixed number then you can still plan on running 2/3+1 and you will get all of those selected before long. For the 100 example you'd run 67 Validators. That's a lot of HNT/fiat. Then there is limited return on investment because what are you going to do, shut down the network? No. Maybe prioritize the packet transfers??? Give yourself a larger mint??
basically all you can do is censor txns, which limits what is possible in a non-forking manner
👍 1
Avatar
I wonder if this could be experimented with in the testnet. Could we reduce the epoch time to run more iterations in a shorter time on testnet to basically project into the future quickly?
Avatar
yes, that was the plan
Avatar
Avatar
evan
yes, that was the plan
You guys are on it.
Avatar
But you can see why the stake being expensive is important
08:00
Or at least that the total staked pool being large matters a lot
👍 1
Avatar
As for the odds, I'm no mathematician but I'm always surprised at probabilities. I wrote a little python script for figuring time to block reward given Stake weight and network weight and it really is surprising how quickly odds increase with additional trials. (Bernoulli Trials). It's like the old trick that Statisticians play on their college classroom. Odds are actually really high that 2 people will share the same birthday in a classroom of 40 or so students. Remarkable. Same logic applies for selecting stakers from a pool.
08:04
(my script was for other PoS cryptos, not Helium specifically)
08:05
I like the idea for pretty high bar on Staking amount for running a Validator more everyday. Thanks for explaining.
Avatar
yeah, I need to do the math on it
08:07
I was always terrible at probabilities
Avatar
Ha, me too. I racked my brain for a good while on the BTC and PoS odds.
08:11
If you want to give yourself a brain cramp and maybe lose a friend or two then look up The Monty Hall Problem and discuss it with others, haha. It's actually related in a way.
😹 1
Avatar
I wrote some dumb simulation code, it doesn't actually seem very likely
08:41
at 10m trials, threshold 67, owning 400 of 500, I had two successes
08:42
the code could be wrong, as that seems even lower than I'd thought (edited)
08:46
no, the code is definitely wrong
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
geophokus
I like the idea for pretty high bar on Staking amount for running a Validator more everyday. Thanks for explaining.
Is more than 10k anticipated? I've been planning on getting in at 10k.
Avatar
Avatar
trevor
Is more than 10k anticipated? I've been planning on getting in at 10k.
Not that I know of
👍 1
Avatar
@geophokus you don't want to use Bernoulli Trials because validators are sampled without replacement from the population. What you are interested in is a hypergeometric distribution. • @evan I wrote some python code (pasted below) to calculate the probability of a bad actor obtaining a supermajority in a consensus group as a function of the total validators, malicious validators, and consensus group size. With 1000 validators, 500 malicious validators, and a consensus group size of 100 this would happen 0.02277% of the time, or roughly every 4400 epochs. That seems like a prohibitively large amount of validators for a bad actor to obtain. from math import factorial def nCr(n, r): return factorial(n) // factorial(r) // factorial(n-r) def get_bad_actor_success_prob(total_validators, malicious_validators, consensus_group_size): consensus_supermajority = int(2/3 * consensus_group_size + 1) total_prob = 0 for x in range(consensus_supermajority, min(consensus_group_size + 1, malicious_validators + 1)): a = nCr(malicious_validators, x) b = nCr(total_validators - malicious_validators, consensus_group_size - x) c = nCr(total_validators, consensus_group_size) total_prob += a * b / c return total_prob get_bad_actor_success_prob(1000, 500, 100)
🙌🏼 1
Avatar
Avatar
apilsons
@geophokus you don't want to use Bernoulli Trials because validators are sampled without replacement from the population. What you are interested in is a hypergeometric distribution. • @evan I wrote some python code (pasted below) to calculate the probability of a bad actor obtaining a supermajority in a consensus group as a function of the total validators, malicious validators, and consensus group size. With 1000 validators, 500 malicious validators, and a consensus group size of 100 this would happen 0.02277% of the time, or roughly every 4400 epochs. That seems like a prohibitively large amount of validators for a bad actor to obtain. from math import factorial def nCr(n, r): return factorial(n) // factorial(r) // factorial(n-r) def get_bad_actor_success_prob(total_validators, malicious_validators, consensus_group_size): consensus_supermajority = int(2/3 * consensus_group_size + 1) total_prob = 0 for x in range(consensus_supermajority, min(consensus_group_size + 1, malicious_validators + 1)): a = nCr(malicious_validators, x) b = nCr(total_validators - malicious_validators, consensus_group_size - x) c = nCr(total_validators, consensus_group_size) total_prob += a * b / c return total_prob get_bad_actor_success_prob(1000, 500, 100)
Woot! Thanks for taking this up and sharing it! Gotta love the diversity of knowledge in this community.
👍 1
Avatar
yes, thanks!
12:55
my simulation code isn't getting that, but I have a bug somewhere, I think
Avatar
Right now once selected you can hang on to a CG position for what, 4 epochs in a row? That might put a multiplier in there as well.
Avatar
it's also probabilistic
Avatar
And one month is what, 1460 epochs?
Avatar
1440, i think
12:56
metric months
Avatar
Am I right about the "stickiness" or persistence of CG members? (Or whatever you want to call it)
Avatar
If the "stickiness" of CG members is constant across validators, I am not convinced that this affects the bad actor success probability.
Avatar
it's not totally constant
13:00
but it's a small effect
Avatar
So are there some optimal numbers to make this scenario cost-ineffective? Possibly not worth worrying about if the potential damages are negligible. Look at Bitcoin... Those miners have full right and authority to choose transactions, so it's not unprecedented. Of course we don't want that but that network is not destroyed because of it.
13:04
But if those optional numbers are reasonable, within reach, then maybe we just consider them. After all, people can be very patient with a passive validation system like this if they truly do want to manipulate. What's 9 months, for example, if you ulyimately achieve your goals and make HNT along the way?
Avatar
500 is what, 5,000,000 HNT? (edited)
13:08
and no one notices that you're half the group?
13:08
for 4 months
Avatar
Assumptions regarding the cost effectiveness of this is largely dependent on total validators and CG size. But in the above example I gave (1000 total validators, 500 malicious validators, and a CG size of 100) that would be staking ~$21.25 million notional in HNT ($4.25 * 500 * 10000) (edited)
Avatar
it seems a bit unlikely
Avatar
I agree
Avatar
Agreed
Avatar
especially given the relatively underpowered attacks that are available
13:13
sorry. edited
13:13
not fully paying attention, it's Sunday
Avatar
If DNS-SD were an option for discovering NAT ports for validators, folks with bare metal in colocation and limited public IPs would be able to make better use of a constrained resource (public subnet).
Avatar
Consider records: Hostname TTL RR Prio Weight Port Target _https._tcp.miner1.example.com. 86400 IN SRV 10 20 8443 minernat.example.com _https._tcp.miner2.example.com. 86400 IN SRV 10 20 8444 minernat.example.com _https._tcp.miner3.example.com. 86400 IN SRV 10 20 8445 minernat.example.com _https._tcp.miner4.example.com. 86400 IN SRV 10 20 8446 minernat.example.com.
18:31
There has to be a better way to format this haha
Avatar
TBH, not even really full DNS-SD. Just use of SRV records.
Avatar
Why are we trying to re-engineer the wheel? I think staking should be done like tezos. Where the HNT never leaves the Owners wallets. Multiple users delegate their wallet amounts and after 30 days (before any returns) the rewards are distributed to the users from the validator / baker. The validators are in competition against each other for availability and the slice that the baker / validator takes. What incentives the bakers / validators is that the wallet holders wont delegate their wallets to them if they have poor availability and reputation. https://mytezosbaker.com/ The users are able to stop delegation to the bakers / validators at will. This method allows multiple people be involved in the process with under 10K HNT and brings accountability to the validator nodes. https://tzbake.com/index.php/baking-explained/
Tezos proof of stake algorithm is a complex operation, in this article we try to explain it in a simple manner so you can understand how your delegations would be used to bake new Tezos tokens.
💯 1
whiskey 1
Avatar
a) this feedback is pretty late, b) this feedback is rhetorically disingenuous, c) this feedback does not take into account how our chain works
Avatar
Avatar
evan
a) this feedback is pretty late, b) this feedback is rhetorically disingenuous, c) this feedback does not take into account how our chain works
Ah okay too little too late. 🤐
Avatar
Avatar
ap
Ah okay too little too late. 🤐
If you look at some of the early backscroll, Tezos was mentioned and considered. Fundamentally, the community consensus has been to omit delegated stake for now and keep the chain simple, acknowledging that delegation and pooling can be accomplished off-chain initially.
Avatar
sorry for the aggressive shutdown, just point b) felt very irksome
😂 1
oooh 1
Avatar
Avatar
louis
If you look at some of the early backscroll, Tezos was mentioned and considered. Fundamentally, the community consensus has been to omit delegated stake for now and keep the chain simple, acknowledging that delegation and pooling can be accomplished off-chain initially.
Thanks for the feedback. I completely understand the rational. Just didn't know how far we've moved on from the discussion stages. Keep up the good work.
Avatar
Avatar
trevor
Is more than 10k anticipated? I've been planning on getting in at 10k.
10K was the original proposal, but the only reason it hasn't changed is that nobody has suggested an alternative value without a modeled justification. At this point it'll probably stay the same, but worth considering that anything is subject to change - especially during the testnet stage.
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
evan
sorry for the aggressive shutdown, just point b) felt very irksome
Its okay. I just realised even I mentioned tezos a while back. I'll shh my mush. 😅 (edited)
Avatar
i reviewed some other projects out there and saw how atrociously high staking requirements were for $FLOW. clearly we undershot here 🙂 (edited)
😹 1
Avatar
I asked several times for someone to make me a spreadsheet 🙂
11:10
I said that I would do it myself during testnet, but have not had the time
11:10
also it's not testnet yet
Avatar
so you're saying the community has a deadline? 🙂
Avatar
I'm saying I shouldn't have given them the out of waiting for me
😹 2
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/22/2021 2:23 PM
Oh. Awesome.
Avatar
fancy domain name
Avatar
Avatar
Lymph
i dont think itll be very much if all you need is ~100gb for now (edited)
I'm running a miner now in docker and it's using nowhere near 100GB. The whole system including a docker install and miner directory is a little over 6GB. Do we really need to plan on 100GB up front for validators? I'm planning on doing this with EBS, so no block storage included in the plan. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
krby
I'm running a miner now in docker and it's using nowhere near 100GB. The whole system including a docker install and miner directory is a little over 6GB. Do we really need to plan on 100GB up front for validators? I'm planning on doing this with EBS, so no block storage included in the plan. (edited)
The miners do not store the entire blockchain only a recent subset of it, validators will be required to store the entire chain, Also expect significant increase in the rate of blockchain growth as 50k hotspots come online in the next 3 months... So 100GB may not be required today but may be required tomorrow.
Avatar
Avatar
para1
The miners do not store the entire blockchain only a recent subset of it, validators will be required to store the entire chain, Also expect significant increase in the rate of blockchain growth as 50k hotspots come online in the next 3 months... So 100GB may not be required today but may be required tomorrow.
Ahh, didn't realize that, but makes sense.
Avatar
I was just thinking about the validators moving onto the cloud and remembered they are recommending AWS servers. Will all the validators be on AWS? Seems like a central failure point if AWS ever goes down, which they do from time to time.
Avatar
Avatar
UnixHH
I was just thinking about the validators moving onto the cloud and remembered they are recommending AWS servers. Will all the validators be on AWS? Seems like a central failure point if AWS ever goes down, which they do from time to time.
It is not required just suggested, also although there are some AWS outages they tend to be regional, its unlikely EC2 will go down worldwide. So with some effort to ensure region diversity in CG members it should be tolerable, Some Validtors on digital ocean, or Azure, or those with their own data center like networks will also work fine.
15:34
I think the point that they are trying to make is "dont run this on your laptop at home"... If you know the ins-and-outs of running services in the cloud you'll know "suggested AWS instance XXX" translates to other clouds' offerings and they all kinda do the same thing
👍 2
Avatar
Ok cool if regional diversity happens it shouldn't be a big deal then. even one validator on a different service should provide enough redundancy
Avatar
One cost advantage to more being on AWS is traffic between EC2 nodes (even across regions) would be cheaper for everyone.
15:37
But hopefully organically, we'll end up with a mix on different networks.
👍 1
Avatar
Past the initial sync, what's the best guess on steady-state bandwidth usage?
Avatar
Good point on the inner-AWS data transfer costs being lower/free. I have some infrastructure on AWS, Azure and at OVH. I'm planning on dedicated hardware at OVH.
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/22/2021 5:03 PM
I think @cyborg shared the numbers recently but we have a ton of geographic diversity in the people / companies who registered interest in deploying validators.
Avatar
fun fact fri: massive interest in @helium validators since we announced last thurs, data from responses across 73 countries, sign up to show interest here and let us know if you'll help test: https://t.co/SwQCIYkjxs, testnet's coming...$HNT #ThePeoplesNetwork
Avatar
Wonder what the interest / stake % will be.
Avatar
Avatar
krby
I'm running a miner now in docker and it's using nowhere near 100GB. The whole system including a docker install and miner directory is a little over 6GB. Do we really need to plan on 100GB up front for validators? I'm planning on doing this with EBS, so no block storage included in the plan. (edited)
I’m confused. You have enough HNT to be a validator, but so concerned over 100GB of cloud storage? Am I missing something? Actually, a lot of people here are so concerned about the AWS bill, but odds are that a validator stake will be a minimum of $50k USD? It would probably cost under $150/month to run a validator, no? It’s like buying a Ferrari and being concerned about the price of 98 octane fuel. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
trevor
I’m confused. You have enough HNT to be a validator, but so concerned over 100GB of cloud storage? Am I missing something? Actually, a lot of people here are so concerned about the AWS bill, but odds are that a validator stake will be a minimum of $50k USD? It would probably cost under $150/month to run a validator, no? It’s like buying a Ferrari and being concerned about the price of 98 octane fuel. (edited)
Sizing systems to applications is something I enjoy doing. I want to understand what is driving the system requirements. I've been running the miner, which doesn't use anywhere near 100GB, and was wondering what was driving that 100GB recommendation, and now I know. Over the weekend I was thinking about what scaling up a validator pool would look like, either multiple systems/VMs, or hosting multiple validators on a single box. Knowing the requirements matters a bunch for this. But, for just a single validator or two, you're right. This could cost anywhere from $20-$200/mo depending on the hosting service and included specs and at current HNT prices that's no more than 50HNT at worst.
👍 1
🙂 1
Avatar
Avatar
louis
If you look at some of the early backscroll, Tezos was mentioned and considered. Fundamentally, the community consensus has been to omit delegated stake for now and keep the chain simple, acknowledging that delegation and pooling can be accomplished off-chain initially.
Curious where this "community consensus" for omitting stake delegation comes from? I've yet to talk to a single person that agrees with that idea. Everyone I talk to seems to want stake delegation or something similar, myself included.
Avatar
Avatar
Ross
Curious where this "community consensus" for omitting stake delegation comes from? I've yet to talk to a single person that agrees with that idea. Everyone I talk to seems to want stake delegation or something similar, myself included.
It's my memory of the conversation that has happened here which you're free to read. From what I recollect, there was general consensus that launching validators sooner than later was best. Adding delegation isn't necessarily opposed, but it does not seem worth delaying validators and gating its release by having delegation. (edited)
Avatar
Yes, we need to get on with it ASAP
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
krby
I'm running a miner now in docker and it's using nowhere near 100GB. The whole system including a docker install and miner directory is a little over 6GB. Do we really need to plan on 100GB up front for validators? I'm planning on doing this with EBS, so no block storage included in the plan. (edited)
Just account for storage growth. You don't need to allocate it all upfront.
Avatar
Avatar
whosawfish
Just account for storage growth. You don't need to allocate it all upfront.
Yup, this is what I'm going to do! Just Resize as I need it. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
krby
Yup, this is what I'm going to do! Just Resize as I need it. (edited)
I expect the storage is to account for blockchain ledger growth (edited)
Avatar
I'm running a miner in AWS with t4g.micro currently and after initial sync it keeps up without depleting credits
20:10
ARM is a bit cheaper
Avatar
Hi! When a validator gets selected. How long do they stay as validators?
23:00
Im trying to figure out the probability compared to the rewards earned of being a validator.
23:01
How many times do they "reap the rewards"
Avatar
Avatar
Rafikiwi
Hi! When a validator gets selected. How long do they stay as validators?
i believe it's the same mechanism as it is now for the current CGs. 1/4 gets "voted" off the group, it's semi based on performance, random otherwise. so, assuming equal performance between all validators, then it's just a 75% chance of staying in
Avatar
Here's more on the current consensus design: https://docs.helium.com/blockchain/consensus-protocol.
👍 1
Avatar
thanks
Avatar
Avatar
Ross
Curious where this "community consensus" for omitting stake delegation comes from? I've yet to talk to a single person that agrees with that idea. Everyone I talk to seems to want stake delegation or something similar, myself included.
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/23/2021 4:22 PM
I think what is being said is v1 validators will be core features -- basically hip 16 but off gateways. Then delegation, overstake etc would be in v2 iteration later on after v1 was live. Not excluded or decided against just not part of MVP. Basically just for the urgency of need for validators overall due to increasing load with large influx of hotspots. (edited)
👍 2
Avatar
So did they send out responses to applications for Validators?
Avatar
Avatar
miqueet
So did they send out responses to applications for Validators?
Not yet
Avatar
ok just wanna make sure I didn't miss an email
Avatar
I can’t wait!
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/24/2021 6:20 AM
Soon. Soon..
🔜 3
Avatar
Is there still time to apply?
Avatar
I decided to go with the patrium pool for now
💯 2
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/24/2021 10:47 AM
is it even an "application" I was under the impression the form was simply for gauging interest.
Avatar
the form is to gauge interest and to let us know you want to be in the testnet
👍 2
Avatar
I mean as I heard there was 4OOO signups... With 1OK coin each, that would be over 50% of the total circulating supply locked in nodes :D:D
11:37
not gonna happen 😄
Avatar
you never know! (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
I mean, that would be crazy odd...
Avatar
would it? there are several chains with >50% of the supply staked
👍 1
Avatar
Staked helps investors compound their cryptocurrency investments by participating in staking or lending.
👍 1
13:01
some comparisons here, many over 50%
Avatar
Is it possible for Argon to have a Community-Apps channel?
13:43
or some place for validator as a service providers
Avatar
@hashc0de @cyborg ^
Avatar
Seems reasonable once these services are actually live. Typically we wait on the thing "working" rather than yet to be launched community apps.
13:49
I think a Category of staking provider channels with individual providers with their own channel makes sense. Assuming our folks responsible for the community are okay with it.
13:50
I'll ping the mods 🙂
Avatar
Ok. We're hoping to have a few beta customers during testnet but we were hoping to have a public forum to field questions today. Happy to wait until we're "live" on testnet though. It's no biggy
Avatar
Avatar
Matthew
Is it possible for Argon to have a Community-Apps channel?
Deleted User 02/24/2021 1:51 PM
I approve this request.
Avatar
okay the squirrel is okay with it. going to yolo it then 😉
👍 1
Avatar
aka squirrel shipping
Avatar
I continue to lightly chuckle at the name, argon. Can't wait for neon, kypton, xenon, radon, and oganesson (edited)
Avatar
All of the above were considered 😄
Avatar
i mean... i was considering shipping a wallet app based on the #deleted-channel name ... where else do you put your helium?
13:54
only problem is that you could only trust it as a hot wallet and not for cold storage 😛
Avatar
I am aware that the test net is not up yet but I have been giving some thoughts to how this will be setup, since its kind of what i do for a living... Here are a few questions I have. 1. Can nodes be clustered or put behind load balancer ? 2. Maintenance to install new builds. Will the docker perform these steps when the validator is not in a CG. 3. Running Upgrade Scripts like we have had to do with DIY is remedial, and should not be the way validators perform updates. They could be working in a CG and a new firmware update comes out and the validator is restarted during the CG. Possible Negatively effecting the reputation of the validator. 4.Can a validator be put in maintenance mode, so when it’s done working it won’t be back in the pool so it’s not selected and disruptive to CG. Ideal for hardware or software maintenance. Just a few questions I have come up with since learning about this and reading and watching the HIP info.
Avatar
1. please don't run more than one in the same place 2. we can provide instructions for checking that the node is in the consensus group so that your automation can see if now is a good time 3. not sure what you mean, could you provide a link? 4. probably not a great idea but we could do something here if really desired.
14:07
@j3rm ^
Avatar
#3 there are some scripts for DIY miners that the community has created. They check repo to see if a new version is available and then update the miner. With the hotspots its ok if they are down for a few mins and they are interrupted. With Validators, they cant be blindly brought down to do a update. I think you covered the concern in #2. if the docker is not going to be self updating, yes, will need a programatic way to determine is its SAFE to shut down the validator docker for an update. so we are no penalized for poor performance because a script blindly updated the docker while it was doing CG work.
Avatar
I believe there’s a miner command to list the current consensus participants. Could easily grep that for the node name during the check.
Avatar
miner info in_consensus (edited)
14:48
that will return either "true" or "false"
14:49
@j3rm I'm not sure what I can do for 3
14:49
I can't make a docker image "self-updating"
Avatar
i feel like there's nothing to do for #3. I think that miner command does it.
14:49
it's the validator operator's job to make sure they are on the right release version and are staying synced to the blockchain.
Avatar
is there a way to get the hash of the latest image from quay?
14:50
you could compare that to the last one that's fetched, then update when it changes and you aren't in consensus
14:51
but like @hashc0de says, I'm not sure what general stuff we can provide, other than advice. we will probably have a mailing list and an operators channel where releases will be announced
Avatar
Avatar
evan
is there a way to get the hash of the latest image from quay?
yeah this is literally what the docker tag "latest" can be used for. just don't auto update it unless you know it's needed.
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
evan
that will return either "true" or "false"
maco2035 🐮 02/24/2021 3:15 PM
With this, you can then see
15:16
I have made my own miner scripts that prevent the miner to be updated by a cron if they are in CG.
Avatar
Yup. I was planning on a cron job that checked for current cg membership before stopping, deleting, pulling and running new docker image
15:18
But, at least initially. I was going to rely on me monitoring the release channel whatever that is and doing it myself.
Avatar
deasydoesit 02/24/2021 3:37 PM
If anybody has a good way to determine whether or not a new release is available, I’d say this is pretty much hammered out
Avatar
A community bash script in the repo would be a good idea. Something simple to (daily/hourly/whatever) check the current docker image hash vs. latest-amd , check the status of CG inclusion, and update.
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 02/24/2021 3:43 PM
@usurper It is not that hard.
15:43
Let me see if I can give you what I added to @miqueet script
15:45
@usurper this is what I put in it
15:45
#make sure the miner is not in CG if it is, then exit the script minerInConsenus=$(docker exec "$MINER" miner info in_consensus | awk) if [[$minerInConsenus -eq true]]; then echo "This miner in in Consenus Group no update for it" exit 0 fi
Avatar
Didn't say it was. Just saying that it would be helpful for validator owners that are less familiar with bash scripting to centralize it.
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 02/24/2021 3:46 PM
@usurper I don't think that is a good idea
15:46
Because running a node like that on erlang, is not simple
15:46
Because the risk you run not knowing something is your stake.
15:46
Which is not a small amount
Avatar
Docker images are pretty simple.
15:52
And I don't agree with the idea of keeping things difficult to create exclusion.
Avatar
Everyone has to make their own determination about risk of running unknown code or unknown updates. Providing a script in a common repo seems like a it will be helpful, but ultimately we all have to make out own choices.
Avatar
It's unfortunate because Erlang has some pretty "sweet" (I've only read about them and not seen them in practice) built in update features... but dockering it sounds like it break those?
Avatar
unfortunately yes. i don't believe we're supporting the live update stuff anyway. the miners do a full restart on new firmware. (edited)
Avatar
@hashc0de @louis @evan or any other Helium folk working on implementation, do you have any sense yet of which APIs are going to be usable to check Validator earnings? Will it have a gateway address similar to a hotspot? If so, could we then just call the same hotspot APIs for rewards information?
Avatar
We don't have explicit APIs defined just yet (in the middle of building) but we will document as others are.
16:10
this is probably the tracking ticket: https://github.com/helium/blockchain-http/issues/176
16:10
you can keep an eye on that
Avatar
the accounts are just accounts, though
Avatar
^ that too. accounts/activity will have all the rewards
👍 1
Avatar
that's where the rewards go
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
unfortunately yes. i don't believe we're supporting the live update stuff anyway. the miners do a full restart on new firmware. (edited)
Ahh I haven't adventured there yet to see how updates are implemented did see a few commits a long long time ago talking about a custom implementation and tests.
Avatar
you have to be very careful to get it to work consistently, and we have not done the work to make that happen
Avatar
Avatar
j3rm
I am aware that the test net is not up yet but I have been giving some thoughts to how this will be setup, since its kind of what i do for a living... Here are a few questions I have. 1. Can nodes be clustered or put behind load balancer ? 2. Maintenance to install new builds. Will the docker perform these steps when the validator is not in a CG. 3. Running Upgrade Scripts like we have had to do with DIY is remedial, and should not be the way validators perform updates. They could be working in a CG and a new firmware update comes out and the validator is restarted during the CG. Possible Negatively effecting the reputation of the validator. 4.Can a validator be put in maintenance mode, so when it’s done working it won’t be back in the pool so it’s not selected and disruptive to CG. Ideal for hardware or software maintenance. Just a few questions I have come up with since learning about this and reading and watching the HIP info.
#4: There appears to be a validator "heartbeat" txn in the works. Perhaps by ceasing to publish a heartbeat, you can advertise that you'd like to operate offline for a bit.
Avatar
Avatar
jerm
#4: There appears to be a validator "heartbeat" txn in the works. Perhaps by ceasing to publish a heartbeat, you can advertise that you'd like to operate offline for a bit.
Reminds me of Balena
Avatar
Congratulations on getting the test net running!
🎆 1
Avatar
Deleted User 02/25/2021 8:18 AM
Yay test net!
🍻 1
Avatar
Exciting!
💯 1
Avatar
woohoo! now just have to.....learn everything.
Avatar
First just internal dev use, invitations and docs coming soon
👍 3
🙏 1
Avatar
Deleted User 02/25/2021 8:22 AM
Booooo cyborg, we're trying to celebrate here
☝️ 1
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/25/2021 8:23 AM
Yaaaay cyborg first invite pls? 👉 🥺 👈
08:23
Lmao.
08:24
Okay that's my attempt at brown-nosing
😲 1
Avatar
ive seen a fancy faucet website kicking around too
🦊 1
08:24
but ill surely be yelled at for sharing it
08:25
cyborg is a master of multiple martial arts, so have to be careful
🥋 3
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
but ill surely be yelled at for sharing it
Deleted User 02/25/2021 8:29 AM
So much tease
Avatar
dont blame me, too scared
Avatar
I’ve heard the headlock is a dangerous thing
Avatar
rip interns
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
I’ve heard the headlock is a dangerous thing
Rear-naked-choke 💪
Avatar
test nets up?
Avatar
Initially for internal testing, stay tuned for email with instructions and docs
Avatar
ok.. im here to test.. break it, and I speak erlang 🙂
Avatar
this one is just for API server testing
Avatar
ah ok
Avatar
we haven't done a genesis block in a long time, didn't want to get to launch day and have nothing work and then delay while we worked it out
👍 2
yolo 1
Avatar
I've heard rumbling about over staking to guarantee validators are in CG and making HNT. Personally, I would do that in a heartbeat. However, I am against it.. I think it sends the wrong message about the network. It's not the peoples network any more, it's the overstakers. "The rich get richer" Or thats one way it will be spun. I think longer term it will cause devaluing of HNT as well. The other side effect is its creates a vulnerability in the network that can be controlled by those who are willing to pay for it. Competitors throw lots of money to take down competition all the time. Just my 2 cents.
Avatar
Deleted User 02/25/2021 10:33 AM
Care to back scroll?
Avatar
there's a FAQ that has been added to the HIP, I'd encourage everyone to read it if they haven't
10:42
@j3rm there are no current plans for overstaking, and even if we did do it, it'd just be a small thumb on the scales
10:42
there should never be a way to guarantee that a node is in the group
👍 2
Avatar
@Deleted User i'd be scrolling for days. @evan Thanks for the info.
Avatar
Adam | No Stable No Fun 02/25/2021 4:14 PM
any insights as to how many validators there will be in month 1? i saw the sheet showing interest (1800 I think), but guesses as to how many actually go live in the first 30 days?
Avatar
Where is this sheet? There are only about 150 accounts with hotspots that have 10k in them. Sure people with out hotspots could stake but that’s a big difference. I haven’t run the numbers recently.
16:19
There are 438 accounts with >10K HNT and hotspots. But there are only 147 accounts with 10K and at least 5 hotspots. As of about two weeks ago.
16:20
1800 validators is a huge stretch.
Avatar
it is possible that people own 10k HNT on exchanges and that is just showing up as 1 big account right now
Avatar
Or multiple accounts
Avatar
Adam | No Stable No Fun 02/25/2021 4:28 PM
Yes 1800 was just how many filled out google form. 438 is good to know. Thanks.
16:30
Another dumb question...do you need to have a hotspot as part of running a validator? I was not under the impression that’s the case but I am not technical
Avatar
Avatar
Adam | No Stable No Fun
Another dumb question...do you need to have a hotspot as part of running a validator? I was not under the impression that’s the case but I am not technical
Not at all. Validators should be run on a physucal or virtual server with good network connectivity and the server is expected to be up and running 24/7. (edited)
Avatar
Adam | No Stable No Fun 02/25/2021 4:34 PM
Cool. That’s what I thought. Thanks @krby.
16:34
Excited to see what happens here!!!
Avatar
Well aware of the ways people are staying off the radar. But how serious are you if the hnt is in the exchange? There roughy 17 M in exchange(based off my roughy research) Of the 438 how many are willing to lock up their hnt for 5 months. My speculation would be 100 validators with in 90 days. Purely speculation. Take it for what it’s worth. 0HNT 😀
Avatar
Avatar
j3rm
Well aware of the ways people are staying off the radar. But how serious are you if the hnt is in the exchange? There roughy 17 M in exchange(based off my roughy research) Of the 438 how many are willing to lock up their hnt for 5 months. My speculation would be 100 validators with in 90 days. Purely speculation. Take it for what it’s worth. 0HNT 😀
happy to take this bet. terms?
👀 1
😆 1
🍿 3
Avatar
Taylor Swift 02/25/2021 4:50 PM
I put myself down for 10 validators on the survey but definitely didn't read the fine print before filling it out
😂 1
Avatar
Avatar
j3rm
Well aware of the ways people are staying off the radar. But how serious are you if the hnt is in the exchange? There roughy 17 M in exchange(based off my roughy research) Of the 438 how many are willing to lock up their hnt for 5 months. My speculation would be 100 validators with in 90 days. Purely speculation. Take it for what it’s worth. 0HNT 😀
I don't have a single hot spot yet, and have the 10k hnt waiting to run a validator :)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Birnie
I don't have a single hot spot yet, and have the 10k hnt waiting to run a validator :)
Same
👍 1
Avatar
I'm going to guess 1k plus validating for HNT when it goes live or shortly there after. Especially with all the private validator pools
Avatar
we won't switch over till there are 100
17:27
I think that 100 will be day 1
17:28
90 days, maybe 400-500?
🙏 1
Avatar
Avatar
evan
90 days, maybe 400-500?
I hope you are right but based on the interest I think it's going to be over 1k
Avatar
Just don't think the financials are there for 1k validators.
passed 1
Avatar
maybe not
Avatar
I agree but once your in its 5 months unpaid to get out
Avatar
Avatar
j3rm
1800 validators is a huge stretch.
I don’t have 10000 in my wallet but I do have 10000 for a validator (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
j3rm
There are 438 accounts with >10K HNT and hotspots. But there are only 147 accounts with 10K and at least 5 hotspots. As of about two weeks ago.
once you get enough HNT in your phone wallet, you begin to panic a little and move it to a cold wallet.
Avatar
Avatar
usurper
Just don't think the financials are there for 1k validators.
you should check out the video and spreadsheet. The financials check out all the way up to 10k validators or more.
Avatar
Avatar
jerm
you should check out the video and spreadsheet. The financials check out all the way up to 10k validators or more.
10k validators is would be staking more than then entire free float of HNT
Avatar
Avatar
apilsons
10k validators is would be staking more than then entire free float of HNT
that's a good point.
Avatar
Avatar
usurper
Just don't think the financials are there for 1k validators.
35% APR not going to cut it for you?
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
35% APR not going to cut it for you?
nope. totally not worth it. everyone who wants to be a validator is out of their mind. Troll
😂 2
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 02/25/2021 9:37 PM
Well 5 month lockup is the only thing
Avatar
5 month staking lockup is a balancing disincentive to an otherwise highly incentivized validator program. Although a cumbersome feature of validation privilege, it does serve to filter for stability and long-term intent. My concern is that the rough PR nature of this “cool down taxation” will discourage some folks who the community would prefer to participate in validation to do so. Clarity over the availability of staking rewards earned through validators may help mitigate this concern.
👍 1
Avatar
Thanks for that—I was not aware of the five-month lockup. Probably not changing my plans.
Avatar
Avatar
OG Rish
5 month staking lockup is a balancing disincentive to an otherwise highly incentivized validator program. Although a cumbersome feature of validation privilege, it does serve to filter for stability and long-term intent. My concern is that the rough PR nature of this “cool down taxation” will discourage some folks who the community would prefer to participate in validation to do so. Clarity over the availability of staking rewards earned through validators may help mitigate this concern.
Rewards are accessible immediately
👍 1
Avatar
While you’re validating yes rewards are paid out per epoch. If you decide to unstake you will not be receiving any rewards and that 10k HNT becomes an IOU until the target block (block unstaked + 250k) is reached and then it returns to your account.
👍 2
Avatar
The cool down period is an absolute great idea. It keeps the validation pool stable, as people doing this are clearly going long on hnt.
Avatar
I appreciate the dunking on my financials but let me post my findings with some assumptions and can discuss. I may want to first modify that model with a validator increase percentage since right now it’s flat.
Avatar
Also, am I correct that Validators don't go on mainnet until Aug 1? If so, some of the spreadsheets are showing many months of 5,000,000 HNT issued when it will be 2,500,000 HNT per month
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/26/2021 5:46 AM
Validators will be on mainnet next month (edited)
🔥 2
Avatar
Ok, I didn't realize there were only weeks of testing. Thanks
Avatar
Avatar
usurper
I appreciate the dunking on my financials but let me post my findings with some assumptions and can discuss. I may want to first modify that model with a validator increase percentage since right now it’s flat.
Did you look at the sheet pinned in this channel? It seems pretty comprehensive. If you make a copy you can play with all the drivers
Avatar
Yeah, it has an error with the validator onboarding year. Here's my copy, @capcom. I'm interested in any feedback.
05:55
Ramp Validators Regarding HIP 25,https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/master/0025-validators.md,Copied and Modified by @geophokus on Discord. All mistakes are mine. Purpose,Model Validator reward and percentage yield User ...
05:56
I made some changes to the original model. First, it had the validators starting in 2020, not 21. That halving is pretty large. Second, instead of a set validator #, I added a ramp. 100 initial, 500 after 6 months, etc. I left the 10k stake and as assumption that every validator is also 10k (safe). Using a $4 HNT price just to calculate the running costs.
Avatar
So 100 validators at once is the confirmed amount ?
Avatar
Will give it a look in detail, on my phone right now. Thanks for sharing @usurper
Avatar
Thanks @usurper great work!
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Will give it a look in detail, on my phone right now. Thanks for sharing @usurper
You're welcome. I'm just curious in the long term staking financials to get a good understanding of IRR. To answer your question, 35% is definitely a good enough Annualized RoR. 🙂
😂 1
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Birnie
Thanks @usurper great work!
This is on the backs of @geophokus's model, so he deserves the credit. I'm just extending the idea.
coolstory 1
Avatar
I think 100 validators on day 1 is no-brainer. If I can manage the software dev in time, Helium Rising has received expressions of interest for that number by itself.
👍 1
Avatar
I thought there needed to be 100 validators
Avatar
Right, so I guess I should have said, the community will be ready when Helium is
Avatar
Avatar
pharkmillups
Validators will be on mainnet next month (edited)
Seriously, during spring break?! You're killing me...
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/26/2021 6:23 AM
Do they not have internet in South Beach?
06:23
Or Cancun?
Avatar
Like I said earlier, unless I have an error in this doc which is entirely likely, I don't see the financials about past 1k validators. At that point, average of 150 HNT a month, down to 50 HNT/month at 1500 validators. For 10k staked with a 5 month cool down period, doesn't look like a good investment of capital at that point.
Avatar
Avatar
xodpox
I thought there needed to be 100 validators
pharkmillups 02/26/2021 6:24 AM
This is the target minimum to convert to mainnet.
Avatar
Avatar
pharkmillups
This is the target minimum to convert to mainnet.
Any word on when we can start testing on testnet?
Avatar
Which should keep a steady validator number as people exit and enter and it just naturally levels out. Which makes sense.
Avatar
Avatar
Ross
Any word on when we can start testing on testnet?
pharkmillups 02/26/2021 6:25 AM
You'll know as soon as everyone else. Next week is looking very promising.
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
pharkmillups
Do they not have internet in South Beach?
Do they have filters to stop wives from yelling at you for not playing with the kids during spring break?
😆 1
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/26/2021 6:37 AM
Negative. You're on your own there.
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/26/2021 6:38 AM
Get the kids on the command line deploying nodes.
06:38
The family that stakes together, stays together
😂 3
⚰️ 1
💯 2
Avatar
Forced 5 month lock in cooling down period. Once they’re in they’re in
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/26/2021 6:49 AM
That's right.
Avatar
Avatar
usurper
I made some changes to the original model. First, it had the validators starting in 2020, not 21. That halving is pretty large. Second, instead of a set validator #, I added a ramp. 100 initial, 500 after 6 months, etc. I left the 10k stake and as assumption that every validator is also 10k (safe). Using a $4 HNT price just to calculate the running costs.
deasydoesit 02/26/2021 7:10 AM
Nicely done. I appreciate how this incorporates the halvening.
Avatar
I also recalculated the Annual Rate of Return including the original staking 10k HNT, since without the original investment included, it's incorrect.
Avatar
Avatar
usurper
I also recalculated the Annual Rate of Return including the original staking 10k HNT, since without the original investment included, it's incorrect.
Good work, thanks for updating 👍
Avatar
Can this new spreadsheet ebecome the pinned one (and in the @pharkmillups validator links?) Or just copy/paste it at the orig link
Avatar
pharkmillups 02/26/2021 7:32 AM
You can add it to the sheet. It's editable.
Avatar
Let me know if there's feedback on the validator ramp-up assumptions. I know it's a guess, but maybe it can be a collective guess.
07:33
Avatar
deasydoesit 02/26/2021 7:41 AM
Per the responses the Helium team has gotten from the Validator testnet form, I think - and worry - the initial amount could be much higher than 100
Avatar
Yeah, 500 to start with a 12 month ramp to 1k and it starts to look a bit bleak.
Avatar
Avatar
pharkmillups
You can add it to the sheet. It's editable.
done. Thanks! @usurper you doc is there. I didn't remove the old one, I'll leave that to the original auther of that. (edited)
Avatar
I mean the whole logic of this seems to ignore hip 20
👍 1
07:55
or rather the rationale of 20, which is that scarcity will drive up the fiat conversion rate
👍 1
Avatar
I agree, there's no USD in here at all other than assuming a flat cost of running the validator in HNT/month. This is just about the return on stake in HNT.
07:57
Maybe 0.2 HNT/month in month 57 is worth it due to the supply/demand curve of HNT.
Avatar
is also ignores the other feature of 20, which is recycling of burnt HNT
08:00
which will tend to push the emissions rate up, but by a degree we can't speculate about currently
Avatar
Given the volatility of HNT/USD rate (like most crypto currencies) I don't think it's reasonable to estimate that exchange rate out a year. We all have to come to our own guestimates. Assuming most the early validator folks are long on HNT, our guesses are at current rate or higher, but unsure how we would get to a number beyond "higher" until Helium is more used by network customers. (edited)
Avatar
Is that a 1, 10, 25 or 50% type of factor on this?
08:04
Obviously HNT valuation will transition from this "network building" phase to "network use" phase, and I think that valuation comes down to how successful the helium sales & marketing team (and others) are in bringing paying customers onto the network.
Avatar
deasydoesit 02/26/2021 8:08 AM
We've seen time and again that the best reasoned tokenomics still feel the brunt of a bull market. I think we all remember times when BTC rewards fell below the cost of miner operation causing large mining entities to pull a portion of their devices offline. So from a validator's perspective, these are important things to consider.
Avatar
@usurper I can try to estimate some sort of slope a bit later on it
08:09
but I feel like any realistic modeling needs to be done in fiat, since AWS isn't going to charge HNT
08:10
so you end up with maybe 4 curves
Avatar
Avatar
evan
@usurper I can try to estimate some sort of slope a bit later on it
Don't want to take any time away from the validator dev. If it's a large %/impact, sure. If not and it's on the order of 10% or less, I don't think it's worth putting time into. There's enough unknown assumptions in here.
Avatar
optimistic and pessmistic usage and conversion
Avatar
Avatar
evan
so you end up with maybe 4 curves
Sure, I could build a curve on HNT/fiat pricing too to apply. At 21 HNT/month today, I don't think the costs here have a big impact on the metrics. Even if those go down to, say, 4 HNT/month if HNT hits $20.
Avatar
yeah, I guess my whole point is that the dire numbers (which are better than a savings account even at current prices) are 2.5 years from now, at which distance it's hard to know much
👍 1
Avatar
That's why I shaded those yearly rows darker and darker. Staring into the murky future.
Avatar
fair enough
Avatar
Transparency 10% plus a standard SF fog roll in. Love it. Heh
Avatar
I don't think anyone is into any sort of cryto for savings account numbers. This is on the other end of the risk spectrum, so the rewards have to be much higher for the risk.
Avatar
super normal returns can't last forever
08:15
either it's a currency or a casino, it can't be both
Avatar
Avatar
usurper
I don't think anyone is into any sort of cryto for savings account numbers. This is on the other end of the risk spectrum, so the rewards have to be much higher for the risk.
Agree
Avatar
** let me caveat that by saying I think the Helium project, and its goals, are not like other crypto and I believe in this platform and its goals.
⬆️ 1
Avatar
bbiaf, gotta breakfast the kids
Avatar
Avatar
evan
bbiaf, gotta breakfast the kids
I know, they're always hungry!
Avatar
At the end of the day the staking rewards need to be enough to get to a # of validators that will sufficiently do the job of the validators, over time. Ignoring rewards increase due to burnt HNT , the current model of halving every two years cuts APY in half every two years (in fiat and HNT terms), which will roughly decrease the number of validators that will be motivated enough to stake by half. So that will lead to a death spiral in # of validators over time. This is a rough analysis, ignoring the cost in fiat terms of running a validator, but is still generally applicable IMO.
Avatar
Not sure about a death spiral, but it'll probably follow the Gartner hype curve style trajectory.
Avatar
Yeah, death spiral was hyperbolic. Steadily decreasing is more reasonable.
08:23
Also, these issues can be resolved in another HIP at some point that isn’t now. But it’s good to be aware of the potential issues
Avatar
wheres the helium testnet faucet
Avatar
Avatar
dogofman
At the end of the day the staking rewards need to be enough to get to a # of validators that will sufficiently do the job of the validators, over time. Ignoring rewards increase due to burnt HNT , the current model of halving every two years cuts APY in half every two years (in fiat and HNT terms), which will roughly decrease the number of validators that will be motivated enough to stake by half. So that will lead to a death spiral in # of validators over time. This is a rough analysis, ignoring the cost in fiat terms of running a validator, but is still generally applicable IMO.
Bitcoin and others have shown us that this halving assumption is not necessarily true
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Bitcoin and others have shown us that this halving assumption is not necessarily true
True. It is probably best to just see what happens as it plays out. We’ll have a halving pretty quick after validators roll out so the market will communicate if any changes to incentives must be made pretty quick
Avatar
I am having second thoughts about staking 10K HNT for the return and risk involved, any one of my hotspots making more than that amount right now
Avatar
your hotspot rewards will also be reduced by the emissions rate reduction
08:42
but it's an interesting comparison to make: what returns would one get from investing 10k in hotspots?
Avatar
That is about $350000 with tons of freedom
Avatar
$40k in backordered email notifications?
😆 3
😹 2
🤪 2
Avatar
assuming you have locations/hosts for all those hotspots, plus splits etc.
👆 1
08:47
tons of work.
Avatar
One ok location get you 20HNT/day, it alone hasbetter return that the validator, right? (edited)
Avatar
Depends on how hard you try or how lucky you are to find a good location. Folks doing this just at home or in neighborhoods (not treating it like a job finding good host locations) may not earn 20/HNT day right now. (edited)
Avatar
At 500 validators, starting April 1, 2021, it sure looks like a validator should do around 600/month. And that's the top.
08:59
Before costs.
09:00
I'm curious on the validator aggregator model now.
Avatar
I remain skeptical that all the people showing interest will pull the trigger, FWIW.
Avatar
who gets 20 hnt a day?
09:22
also recall that's also falling as the network grows
Avatar
20 per day is easy to get in a good medium-density location. But most people won’t be in the right spot for it
09:24
But yes, earnings will always trend downwards
Avatar
7 per day is the mathematical average
Avatar
Avatar
richard Z
One ok location get you 20HNT/day, it alone hasbetter return that the validator, right? (edited)
remember though when there are more hotspots this number will keep going down
Avatar
remember that we expect the numbers to more than double by years end
Avatar
Avatar
Methos
I remain skeptical that all the people showing interest will pull the trigger, FWIW.
Ditto - lately, I am also really asking myself if I should. Would the 10k return 100% within the first month, I wonder, assuming you're one of the first 100? Even 40% and I'd certainly do it - I wish there was a way to determine how many people will actually jump on-board in the first few weeks. (edited)
Avatar
I think the key to modelling it is to figure out what equilibrium state you'd be happy with
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
richard Z
I am having second thoughts about staking 10K HNT for the return and risk involved, any one of my hotspots making more than that amount right now
Adam | No Stable No Fun 02/26/2021 9:38 AM
Really?! Where are you based geographically? Rewards in NyC are no longer significant
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I think the key to modelling it is to figure out what equilibrium state you'd be happy with
You mean, determining at which point (number of validators at a certain point in time) I would not jump in?
Avatar
basically
Avatar
Avatar
krby
Depends on how hard you try or how lucky you are to find a good location. Folks doing this just at home or in neighborhoods (not treating it like a job finding good host locations) may not earn 20/HNT day right now. (edited)
Adam | No Stable No Fun 02/26/2021 9:38 AM
Agreed. 20/day is 10x NyC
Avatar
One of my miners is generating roughly 25 HNT / 24H in NYC and another, which has only been on the roof for 36 hours, is currently generating 26-27 HNT/24H a mile outside of NYC, in NJ, for what it's worth. (edited)
Avatar
now divide that by 8 to project out a year
Avatar
Avatar
evan
also recall that's also falling as the network grows
Avatar
There's probably some pockets in Ohio. Almost always something happening in Ohio. - The Mountain Goats I grew up about 30 minutes outside of Ohio. Grandparents live there, dad grew up there. I like that state. (edited)
😹 1
🎵 1
Avatar
My median is probably pretty close to 20 right now in downtown toronto. It's swung anywhere between 8-37
Avatar
Avatar
trevor
One of my miners is generating roughly 25 HNT / 24H in NYC and another, which has only been on the roof for 36 hours, is currently generating 26-27 HNT/24H a mile outside of NYC, in NJ, for what it's worth. (edited)
Adam | No Stable No Fun 02/26/2021 9:53 AM
I need a better line of sight I guess. Yuck
Avatar
Deleted User 02/26/2021 4:38 PM
Hoping to start the new month with a testnet.
Avatar
It’s coming
👍 1
17:13
Testnet validators already exist internally so things appear to be working
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
But yes, earnings will always trend downwards
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/26/2021 5:40 PM
And price upwards...I feel like this is underemphasized often, but could just be a result of the proximity of the subject to price talk 🤷‍♂️
17:42
#token-economics I'm sure talks about it a lot but it doesn't seem to make its way out to the "earnings are down" people
Avatar
Avatar
Adam | No Stable No Fun
I need a better line of sight I guess. Yuck
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/26/2021 5:46 PM
A Helium Hotspot located in Cape Coral, FL, United States, belonging to account 14oQsXGCju1cMrE1kEfw4seuPzMUKLLCeCcvykv4Ghj6SjvsD6m
Avatar
For anyone wanting to watch community interest, we're now taking pool reservations for the Helium Rising validator pool (www.heliumrising.com). But my point being that anyone can log in and see the current amount of reservations, which are in HNT, so we can get a sense of advance interest level and the number of validators Helium Rising will need to spin up for initial launch.
💎 3
🙌 3
Avatar
We're at 50K HNT in reservations so far. I will likely stake a few myself, too. So if you go on the theory that you get 50% right out of the gate, I'd say 10 validators for pooling is about right, plus whatever we end up hosting as part of our VaaS service, which has 10 times the interest level as our pool.
🤞 2
👍 3
👀 2
13:39
Avatar
Is there a timeline on the start of the validator netowrk? When will we know how many nodes there actually are?
Avatar
Avatar
Rafikiwi
Is there a timeline on the start of the validator netowrk? When will we know how many nodes there actually are?
maco2035 🐮 02/27/2021 3:25 PM
no
Avatar
Avatar
Rafikiwi
Is there a timeline on the start of the validator netowrk? When will we know how many nodes there actually are?
we expect to launch the testnet early next week
👍 6
whiskey 3
🙏 2
Avatar
Avatar
evan
we expect to launch the testnet early next week
word.
Avatar
Ageeable Unicorn 02/27/2021 4:55 PM
Hi. Point of clarification. To register for staking you need to sign up for the Patrium app?
Avatar
Avatar
Ageeable Unicorn
Hi. Point of clarification. To register for staking you need to sign up for the Patrium app?
yes
16:58
We're at 7 nodes here:
16:58
Plus VaaS
Avatar
Avatar
Ross
yes
Ageeable Unicorn 02/27/2021 4:59 PM
Okay perfect thx for the confirm
Avatar
Avatar
Ageeable Unicorn
Hi. Point of clarification. To register for staking you need to sign up for the Patrium app?
No. That’s just one service from one company. There are other options. If you want to stake with Patrium, then yes you need to sign up with Patrium. (edited)
Avatar
Thanks for clarifying, yes, @Keenan is correct
17:03
I misunderstood the question
17:03
Forgot which channel I was on. 😆
Avatar
Avatar
Ross
Thanks for clarifying, yes, @Keenan is correct
Sorry, just didn’t want anyone thinking Patrium was the one and only option. Haha
Avatar
No worries, I totally agree
Avatar
Though you guys are killin it!
Avatar
Ageeable Unicorn 02/27/2021 5:21 PM
Ah ok. So how do I stake with helium?
17:21
Signed up for patrium and received this message
17:21
17:23
To openly note, I’m very amateur with this right now. Trying to figure things out lol
Avatar
Avatar
Ageeable Unicorn
Signed up for patrium and received this message
Really sorry, you have to use a computer. Mobile not supported (yet). On an unrelated note, if anyone knows a good mobile developer, I might be in the market for one. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Ageeable Unicorn
To openly note, I’m very amateur with this right now. Trying to figure things out lol
No worries, new to all of us. we can take this over to the #deleted-channel channel so as not to clutter this one.
Avatar
Avatar
Ross
Really sorry, you have to use a computer. Mobile not supported (yet). On an unrelated note, if anyone knows a good mobile developer, I might be in the market for one. (edited)
Ageeable Unicorn 02/27/2021 7:36 PM
Ah ok. Thx for the heads up
Avatar
Probably smart: https://github.com/helium/miner/ Click "Watch" in the upper right. Click "Custom". Click "Releases". That way, you will get a github email when it's time to update your quay docker image for validators/etc. (Assuming there is a build bot that deploys to quay immediately or some human does it fairly soon after a release.) I'm sure all the cool kids already have this done. 😆 (edited)
witness 1
👍 1
Avatar
it's automated
👍 1
🤖 2
Avatar
Avatar
evan
we expect to launch the testnet early next week
How long would the testnet go before actually going live?
Avatar
depends on what we find
07:44
my hope is that people are active and engaged, we can run some exercises around upgrading and running the service, and do some scale testing
Avatar
awesome
08:06
@linagee and good tip
08:08
is there a channel to report spammers?
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 02/28/2021 8:11 AM
#general
Avatar
Ok, the craziness seems to have slowed down. Looks like 15 validators for HeliumRising's main pool. Could still go up, but I doubt it will change much for the main pool just based on general trends. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Ross
Ok, the craziness seems to have slowed down. Looks like 15 validators for HeliumRising's main pool. Could still go up, but I doubt it will change much for the main pool just based on general trends. (edited)
Wouldn’t be surprised if this goes up. I know plenty of people interested but we are in wait and see mode until timelines are more clear.
Avatar
Hi! Do I need an special machine or hotspot to stake ?
12:25
I recently ask in question and answers if I can mine and also stake at the same time and they told me yes ! How does it work?
Avatar
Avatar
Ross
Ok, the craziness seems to have slowed down. Looks like 15 validators for HeliumRising's main pool. Could still go up, but I doubt it will change much for the main pool just based on general trends. (edited)
freshleysqueeched 02/28/2021 9:59 PM
What’s the pricing?
Avatar
Avatar
freshleysqueeched
What’s the pricing?
You can check it out at www.heliumrising.com.
Avatar
Sorry if this has been asked and answered, but will we be able to stake from the mobile wallet? Or will it require using the CLI Wallet?
Avatar
Avatar
Ross
Sorry if this has been asked and answered, but will we be able to stake from the mobile wallet? Or will it require using the CLI Wallet?
Initially the CLI wallet.
Avatar
Question: https://www.heliumrising.com and https://www.hntvalidators.com/ what are all these? Third party companies helping us being part of the validator pool or with server help? If so what other options do we have? If I can setup my own server and have 10,000 HNT, I still need to go through them?
Helium Rising is a validator pool and validator as a service (VasS) for the helium blockchain and cryptocurrency tokens.
Avatar
Yes, there are a few services, such as Argon.build, that will operate your node or pool together HNT. But you can absolutely run your own node without using a service. (edited)
Avatar
Thanks for your help.
👍 1
Avatar
I was just thinking about this scenario: If I am selected to the consensus group that is known to the network right? Wouldn't it be possible for a bad actor to ddos my server so I will be thrown out in the next round to increase the chances for the bad actors server to get in the consensus group?
Avatar
that's always been possible and is far easier to do on a raspberry pi running on your consumer internet
Avatar
Taylor Swift 03/01/2021 10:27 AM
yeah, you'd also have to like ddos a lot of servers to increase the chances for a particular node to get elected, feels like a lot of work for non-guaranteed gain
Avatar
I guess it is a non issue then chips
Avatar
This came up earlier in a channel when someone mentioned they thought they had a higher amount of ddos traffic when they were in consensus. This wasn't on the miner port, just an increase in traffic. I see plenty of documents on the web about blockchain validator DDOS concerns and some chains invoking validator agents that sit public facing and filter traffic back to the validator (or whole groups of agents that can proxy data back to a validator).
Avatar
Where is the best place to buy HNT for Texas US residents? Please let me know if you are aware.
Avatar
Carl-bot BOT 03/01/2021 11:26 AM
No discussions on buying or selling HNT please!
Avatar
Avatar
Milind
Where is the best place to buy HNT for Texas US residents? Please let me know if you are aware.
There's no discussion of buying or selling tokens on this server as per #rules @Milind. Thank you 🙏
Avatar
Is there any updated timeline on when 25 is supposed to go to testnet?
Avatar
Avatar
Sam
Is there any updated timeline on when 25 is supposed to go to testnet?
Helium Inc has an internal testnet running. They intend to make it public this week
Avatar
oh sick is there a list or something going for people that want to help test a node on testnet?
Avatar
I think we're all sitting in this channel waiting to pounce.
Avatar
pharkmillups 03/01/2021 12:44 PM
is the person who runs heliumvalidators.com around? Same question for https://hntvalidators.com/
Avatar
gametimexxvi 03/01/2021 12:51 PM
@pharkmillups is that site legit?
Avatar
pharkmillups 03/01/2021 12:51 PM
Yes.
Avatar
gametimexxvi 03/01/2021 12:51 PM
Gotcha, so we can start staking in test net?
Avatar
pharkmillups 03/01/2021 12:53 PM
Well, no. Those sites aren't run by helium, inc (despite their names).
12:53
But the testnet launch is achingly close.
12:53
So stay tuned.
Avatar
im quite ready..
12:53
🙂
Avatar
How aching?
Avatar
pharkmillups 03/01/2021 12:54 PM
I know. 🙂
Avatar
gametimexxvi 03/01/2021 12:54 PM
@pharkmillups thank you sir, I’ll wait to hear more news. I’m ready also
Avatar
aching for all of us. i think we're on genesis block 4 or 5 at this point...
😬 1
15:02
we will get there.
Avatar
If I use one of the validator service, the HNT stay in my account, does helium lock 10K HNT from my account? Does that affect my ability to do other transactions such as send and receive HNT?
Avatar
Every service may do it differently. If you stake from your own wallet you will not be able to transfer that amount that is staked. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
krby
Every service may do it differently. If you stake from your own wallet you will not be able to transfer that amount that is staked. (edited)
What's happening behind the scenes there? Is there another ledger that states "this wallet address cannot go below the stake amount", so there's a minimum balance and transfers are denied?
Avatar
I don't know the implementation, just answering based on what I've seen here.
Avatar
I’d be surprised to see any service where you didn’t have to send the HNT from your wallet
Avatar
At least one (can't find it right now ) has said they will run your validator that you stake from your own wallet. (edited)
Avatar
Interesting
Avatar
Ya at that point ita just a straight forward sysadmin service, I guess?
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
I’d be surprised to see any service where you didn’t have to send the HNT from your wallet
The HNTvalidator service said that
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/01/2021 5:19 PM
Hey guys, how long does a valditor need to be up for?
17:19
Is it 51% of the time?
17:20
Also is there a need for a "static" ip?
17:26
not at first, but we'll be enforcing it over time
17:27
a validator would ideally be up all the time?
17:27
its earnings should be roughly proportional to its uptime, unless we start slashing for downtime
Avatar
So worst case if my vps provider falls off a cliff, I could take a validators data directory and migrate it somewhere else, update dns entry and eventually it'll be available for CG participation again?
17:30
I guess this belongs on the #testnet-ops channel. (edited)
Avatar
yes, you can just stand up a new one and transfer the stake
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/01/2021 6:03 PM
@evan Static ip or static web address?
Avatar
Avatar
evan
yes, you can just stand up a new one and transfer the stake
Ahh! So not even the same validator node at a different ip, just move the stake to a diff validator. Cool. Less yo backup on the vps.
Avatar
Avatar
maco2035 🐮
@evan Static ip or static web address?
You should read the HIP-25 doc: https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/master/0025-validators.md It says:
Validator nodes will need large disks for storing the chain and the ledger, and strong (but relatively modest by modern server standards) CPUs and RAM. An AWS T2.large or xlarge should work fine. The node will need to have a static IP and few ports (currently 2154 and eventually port 443) open to the internet. A DNS resolvable URL is strongly recommended. Networking speed is variable, but load is largely symmetrical when producing blocks, so good upstream is recommended. Most cloud machines will be fine, but e.g. a cable modem might struggle. We don't recommend running these machines on consumer network connections.
Helium Improvement Proposals. Contribute to helium/HIP development by creating an account on GitHub.
18:08
It says "DNS resolvable URL" which I assume means just an FQDN (fully qualified domain name) because I don't think validators are really going to use URLs? So foo.bar.com which resolves to an IP that doesn't change often. (edited)
18:10
My guess is that if you're planning on a dynamic IP with a dynamic DNS entry to point to it, your validator may be unreachable sometimes as the peers figure out the new IP address. I'm not sure what the purpose of the FQDN is, maybe to make infrequent IP changes easier to deal with.
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/01/2021 7:28 PM
@krby I understand that part, but there might be confustion on what is what
Avatar
Avatar
krby
At least one (can't find it right now ) has said they will run your validator that you stake from your own wallet. (edited)
That is how we will launch staking initially. We will do pools as soon as possible, but first just do the sysadmin piece for people.
Avatar
Just curious how easy it is to switch validator service provider?
Avatar
are there any yet?
21:19
this is probably the wrong channel for that sort of discussion, but: it's very easy in that you just get a new address from a new one and submit a transaction
21:19
it's good form to tell your old provider that you're done with them, I guess
Avatar
Avatar
evan
it's good form to tell your old provider that you're done with them, I guess
We should be able to detect it from the blockchain transaction if someone leaves.
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 03/02/2021 11:29 AM
FYI after creating a wallet, need to wait a bit before submitting to faucet
11:29
otherwise it fails
11:30
How long does it take to receive TNT
11:30
?
Avatar
Took ~5 minutes for me to see TNT in the wallet.
👍 1
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 03/02/2021 11:35 AM
Am I missing something, I don't see the validator image on quay, do we need to build from source? https://quay.io/repository/team-helium/validator
Quay is the best place to build, store, and distribute your containers. Public repositories are always free.
Avatar
Hit the tags icon on the left.
Avatar
Can anyone direct me on where I can learn how to create a Helium CLI wallet? Looks like we'll have to do that in order to self stake with Helium Rising and I'm guessing all the other staking service providers
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/02/2021 11:47 AM
Anyone know how many peers are running
11:47
I can only connect to one
Avatar
Avatar
Cryptonite
Can anyone direct me on where I can learn how to create a Helium CLI wallet? Looks like we'll have to do that in order to self stake with Helium Rising and I'm guessing all the other staking service providers
👍 1
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/02/2021 11:48 AM
Got my node running?
Avatar
pharkmillups 03/02/2021 11:49 AM
FYI - Most of the testnet chatter should be in #testnet-ops
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/02/2021 11:52 AM
Cool
Avatar
is there a swarm_key that should be backed up? 🙂
Avatar
Do Validators get cute animal names?
Avatar
yes and yes
Avatar
does anyone know if this will still work to use the mobile wallet through CLI?
Avatar
pharkmillups 03/02/2021 5:56 PM
Rust implementation of a helium wallet CLI. Contribute to helium/helium-wallet-rs development by creating an account on GitHub.
👍 1
Avatar
all tech discussion -> #testnet-ops
Avatar
kk (edited)
Avatar
Ok, I've tried to peruse the backscroll to see if this topic has come up, apologies if it has, I just can't find it easily: What are we planning to do, if anything, to ensure that the members of a CG are "diverse" in the same way that the current H3-based scheme does? Should we try to avoid picking members who are "neighbors" in the same "datacenter"? Etc.
10:59
And if so, that will affect validator elections in ways that are hard to explain, but will tend to favor validators that are hosted in unusual IP blocks, for example.
Avatar
it's been touched on briefly
10:59
but the tl;dr is that it's quite difficult
Avatar
I'm ok with "punt for now" as an answer.
Avatar
we would need to encode the mapping (which is likely commercial in nature) into the ledger
Avatar
Surely having us-east-2 go down is a lot less likely than loosing Wifi on a rural DSL connection.
11:01
don't get me wrong: this is something that I would dearly love to make happen
11:01
it's just kind of hard, given how things currently work
Avatar
@evan can I DM you something?
Avatar
I can't due to your settings.
Avatar
I think to start there could just be a bigger marketing campaign to challenge people to diversify their server locations. Just making every operator aware that there is value and many will probably arrange this. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
pj
I think to start there could just be a bigger marketing campaign to challenge people to diversify their server locations. Just making every operator aware that there is value and many will probably arrange this. (edited)
Personally, I wouldn't trust that alone. I would trust incentives. If I'm a validator service, I'm likely to pick a single VPS service or colocation facility because it makes managing them easier. AWS and a few others make it pretty easy to park them in different regions. But pricing in diff regions may be different and now I have account for different costs. It's all just one more thing to remember on the operations side of things. Also, reading chat, when most folks think "host a service like validator" they think AWS. If you let AWS just pick defaults right now for a t3a large/xl instance, I think it's defaulting to us-east-2 or us-east-1. But, EC2 availability and pricing is complicated so that may not be true 10min after I say this. Even if I'm running my own, I'm likely to pick some combination of reliability / cost / ease-of-use and familiarity. For many many people that is AWS for others who have little VPS experience but want to stake 10K, AWS is often the thing others tell them to do. My point is that there are a bunch of small things exerting pressure to pick AWS (and possibly clustering in us-east-2) and without concrete reasons that those people care about, I don't think they'll move. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
krby
Personally, I wouldn't trust that alone. I would trust incentives. If I'm a validator service, I'm likely to pick a single VPS service or colocation facility because it makes managing them easier. AWS and a few others make it pretty easy to park them in different regions. But pricing in diff regions may be different and now I have account for different costs. It's all just one more thing to remember on the operations side of things. Also, reading chat, when most folks think "host a service like validator" they think AWS. If you let AWS just pick defaults right now for a t3a large/xl instance, I think it's defaulting to us-east-2 or us-east-1. But, EC2 availability and pricing is complicated so that may not be true 10min after I say this. Even if I'm running my own, I'm likely to pick some combination of reliability / cost / ease-of-use and familiarity. For many many people that is AWS for others who have little VPS experience but want to stake 10K, AWS is often the thing others tell them to do. My point is that there are a bunch of small things exerting pressure to pick AWS (and possibly clustering in us-east-2) and without concrete reasons that those people care about, I don't think they'll move. (edited)
yes, that is exactly my point! A marketing campaign with a simple guidance on which default button to change on AWS setup could result in maybe 10% of the people not using the default.
11:49
Personally I have never used AWS so I am using provider I am used to.
Avatar
jas_williams 03/03/2021 11:55 AM
I am using AWS eu-west-2 (london as I am in the UK and thats my nearest AWS DC
Avatar
anyone care to share the correct path to the genesis block when trying to run a validator on ubuntu in aws?
Avatar
#testnet-ops for tech questions, please
Avatar
Random clarification question. Are stake rewards also locked for 5 months or just the stake itself?
Avatar
just the stake
14:56
One more - so the 5 month hold. Is that there is a 5 month hold from the time you decide to stop staking or 5 month hold from the original stake then you can unstake immediately? Sorry I know these are basics. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
One more - so the 5 month hold. Is that there is a 5 month hold from the time you decide to stop staking or 5 month hold from the original stake then you can unstake immediately? Sorry I know these are basics. (edited)
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 2:57 PM
This seems like 5 months when you start, but you can move your stake from a wallet to another one.
14:57
At anypoint
Avatar
So I stake on 1/1/22, on 6/1/22 I decide I'm done staking. Does the 5 months start at that point or is it already done.
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 2:58 PM
It is 250k blocks
14:58
So after 250k blocks from 1/1/22
14:58
You can pull anytime
Avatar
Yea, i'm just clarifying between an unlocking vs an unbounding period
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 2:59 PM
Unbounding from your day you pull your stake might be a few blcoks too.
14:59
IDK
14:59
That is what I want to check
Avatar
Anyone else want to 2nd that? That's how I interpreted it too, but I'm realizing it might be an unbounding period from the time the stake is pulled.
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:00 PM
So you have to wait 5 months before you can unstake, and after the 5 months you can unstake at anytime. However when you unstake you need to wait a bit for the network to let you exit in grace.
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
So I stake on 1/1/22, on 6/1/22 I decide I'm done staking. Does the 5 months start at that point or is it already done.
On 6/1/22 count, 250K blocks. THEN your unstaked HNT is available to you again
Avatar
Avatar
maco2035 🐮
So you have to wait 5 months before you can unstake, and after the 5 months you can unstake at anytime. However when you unstake you need to wait a bit for the network to let you exit in grace.
No, this is not how I understand it (I've asked). It is a 5mo "hold" after unstaking. Example: Stake on 4/1, unstake allowed on 4/2. The staked amount is on-hold until 250K blocks AFTER the unstake transaction on 4/2.
Avatar
Shit so you have 5 months of down time regardless
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:02 PM
Yeah
15:02
Well
15:02
I don't like this
Avatar
Not a huge fan of that. I'd prefer a classic lock period.
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:02 PM
I will not stake my tokens.
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Not a huge fan of that. I'd prefer a classic lock period.
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:02 PM
Same!
15:02
@JMF lets make a HIP!
Avatar
Haha all you
15:03
I'd still stake but it does raise the bar for staking significantly for the average person.
Avatar
You can tear down your validator after the unstaking transaction (on 4/2) it's not going to earn, it is unstaked, but you can't transfer the held tokens until 250K blocks after unstaking.
Avatar
we've been considering lowering the lockup period
🤞 3
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:03 PM
I think a lower period would be better
15:04
A lock out from the start is better
Avatar
I don't mind 5 months if it's just a lock on stakes and not an unbounding period
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
I don't mind 5 months if it's just a lock on stakes and not an unbounding period
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:04 PM
this^
Avatar
a 5mo lock may not achieve the stability the Helium folks are going for. You could end up with waves of unstaking based on when everyone staked. (edited)
Avatar
I'd even be fine with like 5 month lock + 1 month unbounding. Creates a hurdle for the validator/pool-as-a-service providers (which I'm not involved with at this point).
Avatar
yeah, I don't know what the argument would be for that kind of staking
15:05
other than "it's easier for me to get out" which is kinda contra the point
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:05 PM
Because when you want a ton of diffrent people to stake, it makes it better if your funds aren't stuck for long times.
Avatar
It's more of a 'lock up HNT' argument
Avatar
Deleted User 03/03/2021 3:05 PM
100 blocks is about 2 months. That's not too shabby
Avatar
100 blocks is 100 mins
15:06
+/-
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:06 PM
But lockup in the front allows people to be insentivised to stay in for long times.
Avatar
100k blocks, I'm assuming they mean
Avatar
I just think it will reduce the appetite for staking in general.
Avatar
Deleted User 03/03/2021 3:06 PM
Sorry, 100k blocks
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:06 PM
And the argument, for less people==more apr will be true
15:07
That will help make an equalibriam
Avatar
The reason it came to mind was because I was considering my reinvestment plan. I was thinking I'd reinvest 100% to validator nodes after the 5 month lock because I'd have some liquidity. Not the case with an unnbounding.
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:07 PM
There will just be less people willing to stake, and the people who do are the biggest players in the eco system
Avatar
Deleted User 03/03/2021 3:07 PM
I'm fine with 5 months as well. But I was under the impression that it is a classic lock
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
I'm fine with 5 months as well. But I was under the impression that it is a classic lock
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:07 PM
Yeah
15:08
A classic lock is way better to get more regualar stakers.
Avatar
I think that's the confusion, there are a lot of unlocking periods in crypto, not so many unbounding. Granted I'm not sure how ETH works now.
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:08 PM
ETH just says you cant until eth says so.
15:08
Well staking isn't working rn.
Avatar
haha actually I remember that
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:08 PM
Too
Avatar
Personally, I like a 5 month lock + 1 month unbound, or 4 + 2 or whatever.
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:09 PM
I think unbounding periods is like getting a divorse and living with them for 5 months, and clasic period is like marrying them, and you can't get a divorse for 5 months.
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Personally, I like a 5 month lock + 1 month unbound, or 4 + 2 or whatever.
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:10 PM
make it 6 months and a week.
Avatar
I get the argument for an unbounding they're making
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:10 PM
When people want to leave, they will just turn off there nodes.
15:10
When you unstake your done.
Avatar
But losing almost a half year on earnings while locking liquidity feels extreme.
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:10 PM
Most people are out of the game den.
Avatar
Plenty of people will still stake, but I'm not sure that component made it through to the layman. I'm relatively in tune and it just dawned on me.
Avatar
Deleted User 03/03/2021 3:11 PM
1 month unbounding is kinda harsh given that one has been under 5 month lock
Avatar
there's been a lot of discussion
Avatar
Plenty of crypto has 6 months lock. Sushi implemented that exact thing awhile back.
Avatar
internally at least
Avatar
So I have no issue with 5 + 1
Avatar
I mean, the lock+unbonding is a lot of work for nothing?
Avatar
Deleted User 03/03/2021 3:12 PM
Cosmos has 21 days
Avatar
just down the unbond until it feels palatable
15:12
to enough people
Avatar
Personally I like a lock too, but for different reasons.
15:13
It's reducing speculative staking.
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Personally I like a lock too, but for different reasons.
Deleted User 03/03/2021 3:13 PM
Capitalist lol
Avatar
what is speculative staking?
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:13 PM
staking for money
Avatar
Short term, whatever you want to call it
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:13 PM
You know the whole point of staking
15:14
I think longer periods that a node is in the game, the faster they should be able to unbound
Avatar
Sushi does it in an interesting way. 2/3rds of your payout is locked for 6 months
Avatar
Deleted User 03/03/2021 3:14 PM
Oh evan you crypto virgin. These streets are riddled with some sketchy deals
passed 1
👀 1
Avatar
Not what I'd suggest here, but an interesting version
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:14 PM
I think lock up your stake until your 5 months in.
Avatar
Haha I'm sure Evans a pro, there's just two sides
Avatar
it's really difficult to parse all the partial arguments
Avatar
the network security side and the tokenomic side
Avatar
Deleted User 03/03/2021 3:15 PM
We all agree that 5 months is fine for a lock down. The question herein is the unbounding period
Avatar
@JMF eh, I think that PoW is immoral, so I don't know a lot
Avatar
Well I sort of agree there
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:15 PM
Network security will work because, there is enough people.
Avatar
but this would be PoS
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:16 PM
But 5 month cooldown will scare a huge chunk of people who been in crypto for a while.
Avatar
the point being that since most coins are pow, I haven't engaged
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:16 PM
A project can go up in smoke in 30 mins.
Avatar
Avatar
evan
@JMF eh, I think that PoW is immoral, so I don't know a lot
A proof-of-something-else is what really turned me on to Helium vs other things originally. It's also what helped me find others to refer or as a host. I really like the idea of incentivizing us to do a useful thing you want done in the world (I'm assuming no one really "wants" to run a GPU at full tilt. Maybe Nvidia?) (edited)
Avatar
Oh gotcha. Anyways, I have no problem with a mix model, but I think there's gonna be a lot of complaining about any unbounding period over a month.
Avatar
Deleted User 03/03/2021 3:17 PM
But the rewards will justify it
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:17 PM
PoW is good, because anyone can do it, as long as everything is Asic resistat.
15:17
Not good for the envoirment tho
15:17
Or anything else.
Avatar
Avatar
maco2035 🐮
PoW is good, because anyone can do it, as long as everything is Asic resistat.
But it's not "good" in the sense of incentivizing something interesting (to me, to lots) (edited)
Avatar
Yea, but I can already see @Ross dealing with all these VaaS clients realizing at the last minute that they can't touch their stake and won't earn anything for 5 months.
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:18 PM
That is what is going to kill the staking.
Avatar
Let's take the PoW, PoS debate elsewhere. That's a rabbit hole
Avatar
yeah I don't think ppl know what they are getting into
15:19
and TBH, I think this is going to lead someone to being exit scammed
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:19 PM
That could piss off a ton of people
Avatar
Avatar
BruSkies
and TBH, I think this is going to lead someone to being exit scammed
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:19 PM
This ^
Avatar
which isn't your fault, but it will be percieved as a helium problem
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:19 PM
They will think HNT is a scam. and then no one will trust it.
Avatar
can someone please summarize the last few minutes?
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:20 PM
Lockup for 6 months and 1 day unbounding is plenty.
Avatar
I can't quite follow
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:20 PM
@evan TLDR, people will get upset when cooldown in longer then a few hours/days
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I can't quite follow
yapping from all of us about crypto 😉 (edited)
💯 1
🍉 1
🍴 1
😋 1
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Yea, but I can already see @Ross dealing with all these VaaS clients realizing at the last minute that they can't touch their stake and won't earn anything for 5 months.
this statement I'd like to understand better
Avatar
Deleted User 03/03/2021 3:21 PM
5 month lock, 24 hour unbounding sounds reasonable
Avatar
Seriously though, others are bringing up the idea that many folks may not be clear on the unstaking rules, and even if that's on them, there might end up being a large sentiment of bad feeling towards Helium and HNT which tarnishes the ecosystem. I think that's way more likely for partial stakers doing VaaS. I have trouble believing someone sitting on 10K in HNT wouldn't read the rules carefully and then read them again the night before actually staking. But people do all kinds of things. (edited)
Avatar
helium makes the validation available, but third parties are running it, which means they may not properly convey the rules; since HNT is tied to helium, helium will be blamed
Avatar
we will make the unstaking rules clearer, i agree. but don't agree that it should be easy or quick. that is not the point of staking on helium. there are plenty of other crypto networks where that is available
👍 2
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:23 PM
@evan If someone said you can invest in CD and you will get X% back every month. And then when you wanted to close that CD, and they say oh yeah we will give your interest, but the principle will take 5 months. You most likely will think the bank is trying to scam you.
Avatar
Deleted User 03/03/2021 3:23 PM
The 5 month period is cut off enough to weed out the weak hands. I'm totally on board with that.
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:24 PM
@Deleted User Or to scare out everyone but the people with investments into helium.
Avatar
think the point is, is helium ready for the inevitible negative press
Avatar
how the independent services handle their stakes and communication is out of our control. as long as the on-chain rules are very clear, i am not concerned. staking services might choose to make the unbonding period for their clients shorter, for example. but in any case making decisions because of concerns about the press is not what we do around here
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
we will make the unstaking rules clearer, i agree. but don't agree that it should be easy or quick. that is not the point of staking on helium. there are plenty of other crypto networks where that is available
The most helpful thing here I think is concrete examples with real calendar times (I know 250K blocks is not guaranteed to be 5mo). When talking to others, when I used that, people flipped the bit in their head.
Avatar
Avatar
krby
The most helpful thing here I think is concrete examples with real calendar times (I know 250K blocks is not guaranteed to be 5mo). When talking to others, when I used that, people flipped the bit in their head.
yea, totally agree. it's not well enough defined currently
15:26
converting blocks to wall time is hard
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
converting blocks to wall time is hard
It is, I wasn't in super early, but have been around for some loooooooooong block times.
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
yea, totally agree. it's not well enough defined currently
The big "gotcha" I think is this: 5mo unbound seems too much to many people, so I think a lot just assume it must be 5mo lockup from time of stake. When that is cleared up, it is a large surprise. I don't envy the doc/edu side of this. It's tough! (edited)
Avatar
the CLI should yell at you in all caps, etc to explain the situation. perhaps 5 months is too long, but the goal is not to make it easy or convenient. the goal is to make the network secure and reliable
Avatar
To be clear, I would love a high return with better liquidity and I may argue for that another time, but right now (or in a month) I've decided I can live with "the deal" as stated.
Avatar
it's certainly not for everyone, nor is it supposed to be. the terms will be too onerous for most. one good thing about long unbonding periods is it makes staking unattractive for exchanges, who i view as the biggest security risk in pos networks
👍 3
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
the CLI should yell at you in all caps, etc to explain the situation. perhaps 5 months is too long, but the goal is not to make it easy or convenient. the goal is to make the network secure and reliable
Heh, I've worked with folks who have intentionally made those kinds of cli based warnings as hard to be "auto-pilot" as possible. Like: "If you agree to this type the last three letters of Xth word in the above paragrapgh."
Avatar
yea, right
15:31
people still auto-pilot through it though, like trying to convince people to search for answers to questions
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
the CLI should yell at you in all caps, etc to explain the situation. perhaps 5 months is too long, but the goal is not to make it easy or convenient. the goal is to make the network secure and reliable
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:31 PM
What does secure and reliable mean to you? Like what is the criteria that needs to be hit for it?
15:33
And how does a 5 month cooldown help with that?
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
it's certainly not for everyone, nor is it supposed to be. the terms will be too onerous for most. one good thing about long unbonding periods is it makes staking unattractive for exchanges, who i view as the biggest security risk in pos networks
Ya, if figure the VaaS folks that win are the ones that can offer essentially immediate liquidity. You'd have to have unstaked/unbound reserves to cover that or you could have an active market of trading partial shares. But...that sounds an awful like an exchange which...your point above.
Avatar
Avatar
krby
Ya, if figure the VaaS folks that win are the ones that can offer essentially immediate liquidity. You'd have to have unstaked/unbound reserves to cover that or you could have an active market of trading partial shares. But...that sounds an awful like an exchange which...your point above.
yea, exchanges are really a liability in my opinion. looks like binance and binance us alone have ~17M HNT or more. that's not what you want
15:34
close to 19M now
Avatar
wait 2M in the 2sec between those sentences? 😉
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:35 PM
TBH people can store there crypto anywhere.
Avatar
kk, I'll stop with this, others are trying to argue an important thing.
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:35 PM
It is up to them
Avatar
i think i was using an old number in my head. but that's more than all the investors and helium inc (for example) combined
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:35 PM
But my question is why does 250k blocks help with the network become more secure and reliable mean?
15:36
Verses a clasic cool down.
15:36
IMO I think there will be less people to stake there tokens, and that means less network secutiy, and realibilty.
Avatar
I say launch as is and see how many validators are in. Then if not enough, modify the rules.
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:37 PM
@usurper what do you mean by that?
Avatar
Avatar
usurper
I say launch as is and see how many validators are in. Then if not enough, modify the rules.
yup, that's what we're going to do
Avatar
Avatar
maco2035 🐮
@usurper what do you mean by that?
Leave the current staking rules as is. I'm sure there will be at least 100 to start, which is the minimum. If the validator growth isn't there, or if there are concerns, then change the staking period (lower) to entice more people to come in.
15:39
Dunno about you all, but I personally want 1) to help make sure Helium gets the # required to build the success of this network AND 2) to have as few validators as possible to meet 1.
💯 2
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:39 PM
I think the 250k block unbounding limtts growth.
15:39
I think the blockchain wants more nodes. not less.
15:40
So the best way to increase it by adding more nodes.
15:40
And making it easier to stake.
Avatar
As I understand it, a risk Helium is trying to guard against, it is a sudden HNT price drop (against fiat I guess) and a pile of validators unstaking to get out of the market.
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/03/2021 3:43 PM
@krby well a ton of people will unstake, and turn off there nodes real fast too.
15:43
Not like they are going to keep them on
15:44
So if the price drops by 50%, a good chunk will just say screw it and dip, and you will have the same number of validators if you had about the same people if there was no unbounding period.
15:46
Like you can go from a 1000 validators to 750 if the price starts tanking overnight. And then there will be 250 nodes offline. The only thing left will be 250 salty validators that have to wait 5 months
Avatar
Avatar
evan
this statement I'd like to understand better
Me too. I'm crystal clear with folks about that on the VaaS side
Avatar
not to re-hash the above discussion, but I do think it may be valuable to add a chain var and the associated code for a minimum staking period (which is how some incorrectly interpret the cool-down period). This can initially be set to 0, but it gives Helium and the community a useful knob to tweak. Then if we want to mix the two ideas its a simple chain-var update that is already vetted in the testnet (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
para1
not to re-hash the above discussion, but I do think it may be valuable to add a chain var and the associated code for a minimum staking period (which is how some incorrectly interpret the cool-down period). This can initially be set to 0, but it gives Helium and the community a useful knob to tweak. Then if we want to mix the two ideas its a simple chain-var update that is already vetted in the testnet (edited)
the unbonding period is definitely not the same thing as a minimum staking period so maybe we should spend some time to clarify that in documentation. (edited)
20:29
i'm curious what the reasoning is around a minimum staking period.
Avatar
I don't have a strong argument for minimum staking period besides it seems to make more sense / be more acceptable to people so may be an easy tool in the toolbox (im personally fine with how things are proposed in the hip).
Avatar
You can use both to encourage people to get in for the long haul and maybe reduce the unstaking period. Say for example you have a 3 month minimum stake and a 3 month unstaking period, you still force people to accept tying up their money for 6 months (longer than today) before they would consider staking while also allowing people to pull money out faster. This doesnt solve the problem of panic unstaking which is why you would still need a long-ish unstaking period but could be used to balance. But in general I'm fine with it as is, and fine if many people decide they dont like the terms, we dont need a massive expansion of validators like we do hotspots, once we have a critical mass of validators there's only moderate benefit to the network for the validator pool to grow.
21:04
The validator pool size is probably already softly capped based on APR, if that drops too low then some validators may decide to "unplug" and put the capital elsewhere
Avatar
Personally I could get behind any reasonable period of lock (3 to 6 months) plus 1 month unbonding. Having the liquidity option makes reinvesting much more comfortable. I’d be very hesitant to keep growing stake with a significant unbonding, but for the most part Im comfortable losing liquidity for a known period.
21:07
I’d say 2 months gets uncomfortable and 3 feels unreasonable
21:08
But I wouldn’t die on the 1 month hill fighting 2 months.
Avatar
I recall some mention of wanting geographic diversity in the validator pool. Is there anything in the way that the 16 CG validators are chosen that encourages this?
Avatar
Will be more than 16 when you get off the Pi’s
Avatar
Sure, but the point still stands. Is selection purely random or is there a bias that strives to spread things out geographically?
Avatar
they already have some code for CG to force geographic diversity on the Pi's you lose some of that info (you dont assert location) for validators but its possible to add that in, or just detect it by IP space.
21:10
the IP addresses and datacenter regions for pretty much all of the cloud providers is well known
Avatar
On a related point, will co-located validators suffer from being on the same subnet, for example?
Avatar
Seems like you’d run into issues with AWS data centers that handle large population centers and end up giving a big advantage to low density areas.
Avatar
As I understand it, the suggestion is that validators don't run on home internet. But that doesn't mean that you have to be on AWS, Azure, etc, to be a validator. There's a middle ground.
21:13
A middle ground that can reliably meet the expectations of a validator.
Avatar
Some mechanism to ensure no single datacenter region going down halts the chain, but it should be fine with a 60 member CG to have 20 in AWS us-east-1 20 in AWS us-west-2 and 20 on the azure equivalent of us-west-2. That should be enough diversity that in the very rare case a datacenter goes down the CG can still function
Avatar
Avatar
para1
Some mechanism to ensure no single datacenter region going down halts the chain, but it should be fine with a 60 member CG to have 20 in AWS us-east-1 20 in AWS us-west-2 and 20 on the azure equivalent of us-west-2. That should be enough diversity that in the very rare case a datacenter goes down the CG can still function
Okay, so the point of geographic diversity is to protect against outages from major network hosts; it isn't about having at least 1 validators in geographic proximity to hotspots ...
Avatar
personally, based on the testnet right now I don't think we need to incentivize geographic diversity
Avatar
Does anyone know of a how-to create a Helium CLI wallet on a Windows machine for "dummies"? I've never done anything in Linux, but I'm capable of following directions if there's a pretty good video or step-by-step tutorial. I'm wanting to run 1 to 2 validators with a staking service, but can't until I can get this part done
Avatar
@Ross Any help you can provide on creating a CLI wallet would be greatly appreciated. I'll probably use you guys for the VaaS if I can figure out the wallet part. Also, I'm sure you're extremely busy, but I sent you a DM a few days back. Thanks!
Avatar
Avatar
NJ
personally, based on the testnet right now I don't think we need to incentivize geographic diversity
If not geographic diversity, how about genetic diversity? I'm 1/4 ginger.
😂 1
Avatar
Avatar
Cryptonite
@Ross Any help you can provide on creating a CLI wallet would be greatly appreciated. I'll probably use you guys for the VaaS if I can figure out the wallet part. Also, I'm sure you're extremely busy, but I sent you a DM a few days back. Thanks!
Sorry, missed the DM. Just sent you back a DM
Avatar
Question about eventual mainnet unstaking and selling stake to someone else. Once I have unstake and waiting out the cooldown, will I be able to: - restake from the same wallet if I change my mind? - transfer the stake to another wallet (sell the stake to someone else) that can then restake? I'm basically trying to figure out if the cooldown is reversible, I know I can (at least on testnet) transfer the stake while it is staked but unsure about cooldown.] (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
krby
Question about eventual mainnet unstaking and selling stake to someone else. Once I have unstake and waiting out the cooldown, will I be able to: - restake from the same wallet if I change my mind? - transfer the stake to another wallet (sell the stake to someone else) that can then restake? I'm basically trying to figure out if the cooldown is reversible, I know I can (at least on testnet) transfer the stake while it is staked but unsure about cooldown.] (edited)
it was reversible, but we got rid of that
07:49
sorry
07:49
it was just a lot of complication
07:49
and people who want to unstake rapidly should try to transfer first
Avatar
Avatar
evan
and people who want to unstake rapidly should try to transfer first
Yup, ok. So unstaking is a one-way operation, but transfering "live" stake to new validator and new wallet will work.
07:58
also inside the same wallet
👍 1
Avatar
btw @JMF to your concern, one thing I forgot is that stake can be transferred. so there perhaps would be a secondary market there for people who had unbonding concerns
Avatar
Hmm, I wonder how I'd think about discounting HNT unbonding purchases.
08:32
It would be a basic HNT * (1 - discount rate ^ time units) type equation
08:33
But what that discount rate is in crypto with a highish stake value is definitely complicated
Avatar
yea, unclear. but it does exist
Avatar
pharkmillups 03/04/2021 9:21 AM
Anecdotally, I know a few groups who are pooling to stake a fair amount of validators (5-10+) and they are agreeing that if anyone wants to unstake, the group is allowed by out their position at a 5-10% discount to $HNT market rate.
Avatar
How do we get elected?
09:39
i dont see anything for us
Avatar
pharkmillups 03/04/2021 9:39 AM
@RSAT try #testnet-ops
Avatar
@pharkmillups those are very friendly terms. At 3 months I’d prob consider 20% but even that might be “friendly” given market volatility.
10:12
Sort of depends on your goal, if it was a company thinking in terms of $s they’d need to consider volatility. If your goal is just increasing stack and plan on holding the math is a little different. You’d prob use lost validator rewards as a comp.
Avatar
Avatar
pharkmillups
Anecdotally, I know a few groups who are pooling to stake a fair amount of validators (5-10+) and they are agreeing that if anyone wants to unstake, the group is allowed by out their position at a 5-10% discount to $HNT market rate.
sgrutman978 03/04/2021 2:24 PM
I tried to get this organized but I was shot down by the discord rules.
14:25
Which groups are doing this? Can you put me in touch with someone who is doing this? Anyone else interested in pooling money? I have a machine to run the validator on and the technical skills, and I have 6,000 HNT to get the staking started
Avatar
pharkmillups 03/04/2021 2:27 PM
Well, I didn’t say it was organized on discord. 🙂
😂 2
14:27
Sorry. Can’t help you build a pool. (edited)
Avatar
sgrutman978 03/04/2021 2:31 PM
Do you know who is creating the pool so I can get in touch with them?
Avatar
Avatar
sgrutman978
Do you know who is creating the pool so I can get in touch with them?
take a look at Aviator (Ross) Patrium.app
Avatar
Avatar
Longtooth
take a look at Aviator (Ross) Patrium.app
sgrutman978 03/04/2021 6:59 PM
?
Avatar
🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ 03/04/2021 8:27 PM
#deleted-channel
Avatar
So from the pinned sheet, monthly HNT reward for running one validator is estimated somewhere between 250-300 HNT per month? Did I get that right? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
loco
So from the pinned sheet, monthly HNT reward for running one validator is estimated somewhere between 250-300 HNT per month? Did I get that right? (edited)
jas_williams 03/05/2021 2:06 AM
depends how many validators actually put up the cash/hnt (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
jas_williams
depends how many validators actually put up the cash/hnt (edited)
so I guess early adoptors make the most out of it from the initial rewards, before others join the party?
Avatar
Avatar
loco
so I guess early adoptors make the most out of it from the initial rewards, before others join the party?
jas_williams 03/05/2021 2:11 AM
Long term make the most but yes as more validators come online the rewards are shared between more validators
Avatar
cool, good to know - thanks
Avatar
sgrutman978 03/05/2021 6:41 AM
anyone interested in pooling funds to stake a validator? I have the server and the tech skills, just need another 4k HNT
Avatar
In current tesnet with about 85 validators
15:45
It mention "Pre-Halving" because next halving is in August 2021 and the net HNT issuance will be reduced to 2.5M HNT per month instead 5 Millions
15:45
So the earn will be less with the time am i right ?
Avatar
Avatar
elkuni
So the earn will be less with the time am i right ?
you can expect the APR to roughly halve with each halvening (some validators may leave if APR gets too low increasing the APR slightly for those tat remain). Also validators wont go live until there are atleast 100 active and (for real) staked validators so for APY estimates id assume 100 validators at minimum.
Avatar
yes, you can also ignore that APY number as it's assuming a circulating supply on the testnet that is nothing like the mainnet
Avatar
it's actually just based on the google sheet that's pinned here. 300,000 HNT per month on avg go to validators, divided by currently active validators * 12 as a percent of your 10k stake. obviously there will be more validators on mainnet, and maybe we can find smarter ways to derive that number, but it should be somewhat accurate
16:34
"accurate" in quotes
Avatar
Avatar
bones
it's actually just based on the google sheet that's pinned here. 300,000 HNT per month on avg go to validators, divided by currently active validators * 12 as a percent of your 10k stake. obviously there will be more validators on mainnet, and maybe we can find smarter ways to derive that number, but it should be somewhat accurate
When you say 300,000 it is 300 thousand HNT. right ? It is like that and there are 100 validators then (300,000 / 100) = 3000 HNT by validator by month. At year it will be (3000 * 12) = 36000 HNT (edited)
Avatar
you are right
Avatar
5M HNT on avg is produced per month, 6% of that is allocated to consensus group
Avatar
Avatar
bones
5M HNT on avg is produced per month, 6% of that is allocated to consensus group
so after halving in August 2021 it will be 2.5M HNT produced by month. Where (2.5M * 6%) = 150 000 allocated to consensus group and at the end a validator (in a group of 100) will earn (1500 * 12) = 18000 HNT in a year (edited)
Avatar
correct
Avatar
Thank you very much 👍
holmes 1
Avatar
How are we going to get to 100?
19:58
Are people all going to stake and hope we get to 100 quickly
19:59
It would suck to have 75 ready to go waiting for last 25.
Avatar
IMO the activity on testnet combined with the reservations for the various VaaS services looks like there will be 100 ready to go right away.
Avatar
qq: I am operating a non-custodial VaaS (hntvalidators.com) and I'd like to add a channel under vendors like other VaaS have. How can I do this? Do I need to ask an admin to create?
Avatar
Avatar
posinaga
qq: I am operating a non-custodial VaaS (hntvalidators.com) and I'd like to add a channel under vendors like other VaaS have. How can I do this? Do I need to ask an admin to create?
yeah you will need to reach an admin, but its late now
21:52
21:52
quick spelling error btw
Avatar
ok will do tomorrow - thx for the spell check. it's fixed now.
Avatar
beauty. @posinaga (edited)
22:08
oh also, is the 199 the total cost? no percentage of hnt per month?
Avatar
199 is the total cost. We don't take a cut of the HNT rewards (we are not even in the loop as it is non-custodial)
Avatar
How will the DNS resolvable URL work in practice? Right now it seems to make no difference if you have one or not
Avatar
Guessing you will just need an A record
Avatar
Avatar
k0b13
Guessing you will just need an A record
Right, but why is it not needed now? I am guessing it will make it easier to connect to the validator when you have one
Avatar
sleepyforages.eth 03/06/2021 9:15 AM
Hey Peeps, any thoughts when this HIP will be deployed?
Avatar
We’re going to blow by 100. I personally know of more than 100 validators going live.
09:31
Between pools, larger holders, companies, etc
Avatar
Avatar
jox
Right, but why is it not needed now? I am guessing it will make it easier to connect to the validator when you have one
it's to make it easier for light gateways to find you in a later stage of the network
10:55
we envision a world where validators compete to provide proxy service for light gateways
Avatar
Avatar
evan
we envision a world where validators compete to provide proxy service for light gateways
Oo perfect, just the answer I was looking for. Thanks a lot evan!
Avatar
I know of a few people whose participation will rise quite a lot in the actual network, who're just running 1 or 2 now but plan to run many when we get to mainnet
11:32
as a testnet update, we have 105 active participants and are running the group at 31 members
Avatar
Avatar
evan
we envision a world where validators compete to provide proxy service for light gateways
Cool! One nit/question. Does Helium actually mean "DNS resolvable URL" or is it just a resolveable hostname? You may think I'm nitpicking, but when I see (and I know others) the word URL as requirement, I start thinking about web servers, http load balancers, etc. I know URLs aren't limited to webservers, but that's the typical meaning in publicly available services on the Internet. If Helium means just a resolvable fully qualified domain name (i.e. I can satisfy this with just an A type DNS record I control) then different wording would help. I'd submit a docs PR if I was sure of the intent.
11:44
name -> ip mapping is all that was meant
11:44
I'm sorry, I wrote it and come from the pre-web world
11:44
all this http stuff is a passing fad, imo
Troll 1
😆 1
11:46
looking at the definitions, hostname is definitely better
11:47
I assumed that since URL/URI encompassed non text protocols (e.g. telnet://example.com etc), that it had broader use
11:49
I remember that jerm had a problem with the wording too
Avatar
pharkmillups 03/06/2021 12:01 PM
I figured it meant gopher.
🧓 1
Avatar
Or Gemini 🙂
Avatar
I agree with the general sentiment that a 5 month cooldown period is too long. I certainly understand the intent is to create a stable minimum # of validators, and a 5month cooldown disincentivizes speculative trading on the staked HNT -- but 5 months is ridiculously long. Not only will that dissuade people from ever locking up to stake, but also will make staking-as-a-service companies very difficult. Convincing non-technical people that they wont have access to their 10k HNT for almost half a year is a super tough pill to swallow. Personally, I think even 1 month is sufficient to create validator stability.
Avatar
Avatar
elkuni
so after halving in August 2021 it will be 2.5M HNT produced by month. Where (2.5M * 6%) = 150 000 allocated to consensus group and at the end a validator (in a group of 100) will earn (1500 * 12) = 18000 HNT in a year (edited)
freshleysqueeched 03/06/2021 1:35 PM
On this note, I thought I read somewhere that the 5M/month was based on a 30 second block time. Is this correct?
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I remember that jerm had a problem with the wording too
Ok, I'll make go search thru the docs repo and make a PR for it.
Avatar
Avatar
freshleysqueeched
On this note, I thought I read somewhere that the 5M/month was based on a 30 second block time. Is this correct?
60 seconds on mainnet currently
Avatar
thanks!
Avatar
Avatar
Justin
I agree with the general sentiment that a 5 month cooldown period is too long. I certainly understand the intent is to create a stable minimum # of validators, and a 5month cooldown disincentivizes speculative trading on the staked HNT -- but 5 months is ridiculously long. Not only will that dissuade people from ever locking up to stake, but also will make staking-as-a-service companies very difficult. Convincing non-technical people that they wont have access to their 10k HNT for almost half a year is a super tough pill to swallow. Personally, I think even 1 month is sufficient to create validator stability.
Thanks for the feedback
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
60 seconds on mainnet currently
freshleysqueeched 03/06/2021 2:02 PM
Ah 30 sec epoch time was what it said
Avatar
Epoch is around 30 blocks, so 30 mins on the mainnet
14:03
Testnet is running at 30s blocks
Avatar
freshleysqueeched 03/06/2021 2:14 PM
-.- thank you. Apparently need to work on my reading comprehension
😂 1
Avatar
I think 5 months is a good place to start. You still get reward, so it's not like everything is locked up. Based on a couple of guesses on my part the ROI is going to be high enough to support a 5 month cool down. Even after halving. Of course, this is based on today's value (who's name can not be mentioned). I personally think that if you jump into the pool you should plan to stay for at least a year.
Avatar
You don't get any rewards during the 5 months. Even if you leave in a year, you lose 5 months of earnings.
Avatar
Earnings? Not sure what you are talking about. HNT does not earn anything.
15:41
If it's sitting in a wallet today, it's just like the cool down period. How long has it been sitting in your wallet?
Avatar
Avatar
Justin
I agree with the general sentiment that a 5 month cooldown period is too long. I certainly understand the intent is to create a stable minimum # of validators, and a 5month cooldown disincentivizes speculative trading on the staked HNT -- but 5 months is ridiculously long. Not only will that dissuade people from ever locking up to stake, but also will make staking-as-a-service companies very difficult. Convincing non-technical people that they wont have access to their 10k HNT for almost half a year is a super tough pill to swallow. Personally, I think even 1 month is sufficient to create validator stability.
FWIW as an operator of a VaaS service (hntvalidators.com) the 5mo cooldown has not been an issue at all. While folks may not have the time or technical skills to operate a validator themselves, most folks have a deep understanding of blockchain incentive systems and dynamics. IMHO, it is best to start with a more long-term committed approach (current approach seems fair) and only if the interest is not there or you can't convince sufficient people to stake/validate then you can think about being more flexible. IMO it's best to align the interest of validators with the long-term health of helium - regardless of what may happen month-to-month in terms of token price. From what I see there are sufficient long-term believers in the network - and those are the folks that you want to work with to build it, scale it, and make it succeed - regardless of short term financials up/downs.
🙌 7
Avatar
Avatar
Longtooth
Earnings? Not sure what you are talking about. HNT does not earn anything.
freshleysqueeched 03/06/2021 4:00 PM
On that note, are staking rewards liquid? or are they also subject to the 5mo cooldown?
Avatar
Avatar
freshleysqueeched
On that note, are staking rewards liquid? or are they also subject to the 5mo cooldown?
Rewards are issued on every epoch and not locked up like other chains.
👍 1
Avatar
we could tie it to the number of validators
16:57
large = 2k, cool down = 1 mo, med = 1k, cool down = 2 mo, smaller than that, cool down is 3 or 4 months
👍 2
Avatar
That's a really interesting idea
Avatar
Yea. It is actually
Avatar
Think about the lockup of an IPO. The greatest number of jumpers will be cool down plus 1 day.
Avatar
It would encourage more validators too
Avatar
Avatar
Longtooth
Think about the lockup of an IPO. The greatest number of jumpers will be cool down plus 1 day.
Yea but arguably ok if there are 5k others
17:31
Or, more ok
Avatar
So, set it at 5 months for under 1000.
17:33
but be prepared for a huge number of jumpers when the cool down changes.
Avatar
we could make it smoothly scaling from some ceiling to some floor
Avatar
Easy to adjust with a chain var too
18:50
Once more tokens are mined (edited)
Avatar
I admit I dont follow this channel too closely so maybe this has been discussed, but has the community thought about what happens way down the road, say 3-4 havenings when the APR is super low? I guess you can reduce the minimum stake if interest in validating drops too significantly.
Avatar
Reducing the cool down period based on number of validators is one tactic. Could be done in conjunction with or separately from another tactic I like which is to allow for a queue of departures. The longer the queue is the more “expensive” it is to leave. You can either leave by waiting longer or potentially burning some amount of HNT to DCs to skip the line.
Avatar
I still dont fully understand so after we stake 10,000 and have our validator up and running, after 5 months we get our 10,000 stake back, but we still have the validator which continues to run indefinitely?
Avatar
Avatar
myka
I still dont fully understand so after we stake 10,000 and have our validator up and running, after 5 months we get our 10,000 stake back, but we still have the validator which continues to run indefinitely?
no your 10k is locked up for however long the validator is running. Once you stop the validator (via an on chain transaction) its 5 months after that until your 10k HNT is available
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
Reducing the cool down period based on number of validators is one tactic. Could be done in conjunction with or separately from another tactic I like which is to allow for a queue of departures. The longer the queue is the more “expensive” it is to leave. You can either leave by waiting longer or potentially burning some amount of HNT to DCs to skip the line.
very interesting
22:58
especially because you could lock in your minimum # of validators, basically if remaining validators are <= 100 there is no dequeueing / 10kHNT burn to get out
Avatar
Yep. I think it brings in the right incentives for the network.
Avatar
I love that. I wonder if it would make sense to drop the queue concept in favor of a simple “fast forward” transaction that you could execute after your unbonding period begins to instantly get your funds back. 5mo left (just unbonded): burn 10k 4mo left: burn 8k 3mo left: burn 6k 2mo left: burn 4k 1mo left: burn 2k (edited)
23:47
Burn would decrease per block
23:48
You could also make it a less severe scale, say starting at 2k burn instead of 10k. Still a very hefty penalty.
Avatar
I do think its fine for validation to be quite painful / uninteresting for most people as long as you have enough committed for the chain to run smoothly. My concern with having a "2k burn instead of 10k" is if the volatility that is triggering a panic unbonding is more significant than the 20% then people would do it anyway. If value of HNT 3x in 2 days, who cares if you lose 20%, you just gained 300%? (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Not sure it will help the conversation but I can offer a direct comparison of the 5-month cooldown. I participated in the Grand Wailea membership (you got discounted rooms, advanced reservations, better access, blah, blah, blah). $3000 membership, 36-months lock up, and 12-month unbonding (of sorts). When I asked to exit, I had to wait 12 months for return of my money unless they found another buyer. I am pretty sure they were not trying to find another buyer on my behalf; I got my money back 12 months and 3 days later. I have no issues with the 0-month lock up and 5-month unbounding time period for validators. It is not costing you HNT to wait out the unbounding period. It is not costing you opportunity cost of the HNT (that is, there is no where else to "invest" your HNT). The only thing it may cause you to miss out on is the oportunity cost of the value of the HNT (that is, you sell to buy something else). If a price drop is the trigger for you to unbound, then the consequence of the 5 month period is quite beneficial actually; it decreases volatility. And for the validator pools (for the less HNT rich folks), it seems like they are doing their part to have an unstaking liquidity; which is very nice of them. I would go so far that to say it is unnecessarily nice of them. If you can't wait 5-months to get your HNT back, being a validator or member of a pool is probably not for you. Validators need to be committed; and the reward structure seems designed to do just that, reward you for your commitment and effort. (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
I think people object to not earning rewards during the 5 month period.
Avatar
Avatar
kwatkins99
I think people object to not earning rewards during the 5 month period.
That’s exactly the point
☝️ 4
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Not sure it will help the conversation but I can offer a direct comparison of the 5-month cooldown. I participated in the Grand Wailea membership (you got discounted rooms, advanced reservations, better access, blah, blah, blah). $3000 membership, 36-months lock up, and 12-month unbonding (of sorts). When I asked to exit, I had to wait 12 months for return of my money unless they found another buyer. I am pretty sure they were not trying to find another buyer on my behalf; I got my money back 12 months and 3 days later. I have no issues with the 0-month lock up and 5-month unbounding time period for validators. It is not costing you HNT to wait out the unbounding period. It is not costing you opportunity cost of the HNT (that is, there is no where else to "invest" your HNT). The only thing it may cause you to miss out on is the oportunity cost of the value of the HNT (that is, you sell to buy something else). If a price drop is the trigger for you to unbound, then the consequence of the 5 month period is quite beneficial actually; it decreases volatility. And for the validator pools (for the less HNT rich folks), it seems like they are doing their part to have an unstaking liquidity; which is very nice of them. I would go so far that to say it is unnecessarily nice of them. If you can't wait 5-months to get your HNT back, being a validator or member of a pool is probably not for you. Validators need to be committed; and the reward structure seems designed to do just that, reward you for your commitment and effort. (edited)
Overall I'm ok with the 5mo unbonding (I'd like it to be lower for selfish reasons, but going to stake anyway, but I disagree with a few small points you made:
The only thing it may cause you to miss out on is the oportunity cost of the value of the HNT
^^^ You kind of down play this point, but opportunity cost of the value of HNT is opportunity cost of stake HNT overall. If it's easily convertable to cash, it's cash. So in those five months could I earn 8% APR on $40? That's $640. That buys another hotspot! I thinkthe bigger cost is that exposes the holder to exchange rate risk on a pretty volatile asset. Tha $40K becoming $20K in 5mo is a big deal, it's painful. If it wasn't painful it wouldn't be a good motivator. But it's a personal decision. If you believe in HNT and Helium long term and know yourself enough to know you'll be able to ride out any price volatility, then the exchange rate risk may be tolerable in exchange for the rewards
seems like they are doing their part to have an unstaking liquidity; which is very nice of them. I would go so far that to say it is unnecessarily nice of them.
^^^ Heh. I think it's customer demand. When I think about the key things people would change about the current staking rules I come up with: - 10K minimum (if they have less) - technical expertise and/or time to run a validator node - 5 month no earning cooldown. VaaS easily solve the first two, so people are willing to pay for that service. If someone can actually offer near instant liquidity (the last point), I think they'll have a compelling product to...welll pretty much anyone who has HNT? But...I don't think that's a great situation for the Helium network. Luckily, it's not an easy problem to solve well, maybe it is for smarter people?
(edited)
Avatar
Avatar
kwatkins99
I think people object to not earning rewards during the 5 month period.
But once you ask to unstake, you are no longing providing validator services thus are not deserving of the rewards from validation. So it would seem appropriate to not earn rewards during the unbonding. (edited)
Avatar
@krby Hasn't Helium Rising [mostly] solved all of your issues so far? 100 HNT units. Instant earnings at time of staking. Attempting to provide near instant liquidity. Not shilling for them, but as soon as they allowed me to be a part of this for fewer than 10,000 HNT, I was in. My HNT wasn't earning any rewards sitting in my wallet; so no different during the unbonding. I was holding my HNT for appreciation over the next few years. I haven't given up that plan by staking and I won't be giving up that plan waiting for my unbonding. I wouldn't advise anyone to participate in staking if you aren't in for the long haul. Such a policy allows me to significantly downplay the opportunity cost of the unbonding. Is it not an inherent property of Proof-of-Stake to be in it for the long haul? In a trustless situation, you can trust me to make good decisions (or good effort in the case of validator services) for the network because I have a lot riding on it (my stake) and that I will make long-term decisions because of the cool-down period (unbonding in our example).
Avatar
Yes. I think Helium Rising addresses most of my issues so far.
Avatar
@KeithR Ya, I haven't looked deeply at all of the VaaS offerings. I'm going to stake myself, then look at what to do with whatever else I have. If they really have near-instant liquidity over time. Then I bet they'll gain significant market share and good for them! But being able to offer that when lots of people are asking for their money back is tough. I can think of a few ways to do it, and would really love the opportunity to talk to them about how they're covering that liability but that's just because I'm curious. They've got no reason to share that info and I've got no right to expect it. (edited)
Avatar
In the helium roadmap page https://www.helium.com/roadmap says launch Validators on Mainnet (Stretch) in Q1 goals. It is realizable at this point ? or we must to wait to Q2 tfor the launch
Avatar
It's possible. It'll be done when it's done.
Avatar
I still feel 5 months to be a bit on the aggressive side (I'm a 3 month max guy). Either way there will be a secondary market that develops, so keeping the transferability of the stake is important. There will be an interesting dynamic if HNT makes it onto the crypto debt platforms. Let's say it pays 6% interest on holdings. Does that put a hard limit on number of validators. I assume it would be 6% + points based on the opportunity cost of the unbonding period.
Avatar
Avatar
evan
large = 2k, cool down = 1 mo, med = 1k, cool down = 2 mo, smaller than that, cool down is 3 or 4 months
This is an interesting idea. Another idea could be to create a max number of HNT which can be unbonded per epoch. Any HNT in excess of that amount joins a queue and waits for the next epoch. This is similar to how “fund level gates” work in hedge funds in order to protect the fund from all the investors redeeming at once (edited)
13:27
I think we should start with the simple solution and keep open minds about improvements and adjustments
👍 3
👆 2
Avatar
having the time be a linear interpolation between two points isn't a ton of work, it's relatively easy to add it people like it
13:42
I prefer that one to tiers (edited)
Avatar
For validators, is the HNT earned during staking added to the locked funds or sent directly to a wallet where it’s accessible?
Avatar
Avatar
Hedgehood
For validators, is the HNT earned during staking added to the locked funds or sent directly to a wallet where it’s accessible?
the latter
Avatar
👍👍thank you
Avatar
Please bear with me as I learn and correct me if I say something wrong. I underststand that the number of validators is unlimited and will likely grow as long as the returns warrant it. So, there will be a kind of equilibrium at a "market rate". Where do I go to get information on what that rate might be?
Avatar
Avatar
kwatkins99
Please bear with me as I learn and correct me if I say something wrong. I underststand that the number of validators is unlimited and will likely grow as long as the returns warrant it. So, there will be a kind of equilibrium at a "market rate". Where do I go to get information on what that rate might be?
The future
🔮 1
Avatar
Are there any comparables from any other similar circumstances? Or, this totally new? Like, what are staking rewards for other similar market cap blockchains? I may be asking for too much.
Avatar
I don’t have any exact stats in my head but seems like staking rewards for most blockchains are in the 5-16% range
Avatar
Thanks. Is it safe to assume the lower end of the range would be for the larger cap, well established blockchains?
Avatar
Avatar
kwatkins99
Please bear with me as I learn and correct me if I say something wrong. I underststand that the number of validators is unlimited and will likely grow as long as the returns warrant it. So, there will be a kind of equilibrium at a "market rate". Where do I go to get information on what that rate might be?
look at the pinned spreadsheets. it's relatively easy to calculate at the current oracle price
Avatar
At what number of validators though? I figure validators will increase until some kind of market equilibrium is reached. I was trying to estimate where that level might be. I know it would have to be rough but have to start somewhere.
Avatar
Avatar
kwatkins99
Are there any comparables from any other similar circumstances? Or, this totally new? Like, what are staking rewards for other similar market cap blockchains? I may be asking for too much.
pharkmillups 03/08/2021 7:50 AM
Research Platform for Proof of Stake assets, Staking Providers, Trusted Blockchain Data, Intelligent Reward Calculator, Journals & Ecosystem Reports - Explore now!
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
kwatkins99
At what number of validators though? I figure validators will increase until some kind of market equilibrium is reached. I was trying to estimate where that level might be. I know it would have to be rough but have to start somewhere.
it's actually outlined in the spreadsheet. you can see at what point the APR becomes 0, which is what i think you're asking
07:53
i'd assume most validators aren't interested well before that though
Avatar
This is very helpful. I can see there is a huge range of returns. And the best known ones don't necessarily offer lower returns. (edited)
Avatar
Hi @evan and team, I'd like to propose a change to how consensus rewards are calculated as part of validators. I believe that consensus rewards should use a rolling average of the epoch length in the reward calculation (or something similar) to adjust for variable epoch/elections lengths. Currently, consensus rewards assumes a fixed epoch length (30 blocks) unlike PoC and Security rewards which use actual epoch length in reward calculation. This was an intentional decision to disincentive bad CG behavior (e.g., delaying an election to earn more rewards). However, this approach will naively punish the entire validator pool instead of just the poor performers. Any time an epoch goes long, it results in fewer rewards proportional to PoC and Securities, meaning consensus falls short of the 6% target. This happens even in the best case as the election process only starts after 30 blocks and takes a non-zero amount of time to run. For example, even if the average is just 31 blocks, consensus rewards drop by ~3%. Given that validator operators will be basing significant investment decisions off of the projected returns, I believe this needs to be addressed.
🤔 1
Avatar
not right now
10:45
write a hip
10:45
it's more tangled than that
Avatar
really? a hip? seems more like a defect. CG rewards have been underallocated for a while
10:47
it's a dramatic change in how those rewards are allocated, well beyond the scope of hip 25
Avatar
Seems like something that could eventually be solved by slashing
Avatar
like, it's literally out of my hands. the approved HIP says nothing but that the rewards will be reallocated
Avatar
slashing will help but not make up for the validator losses, unless the slashing is redistributed to the other validators in the pool and the amount is proportional to the losses. i'll take it to #hip-discussion
Avatar
Original message was deleted or could not be loaded.
what are you attempting to do?
Avatar
dm'd you if that's cool
Avatar
Avatar
Hashem
dm'd you if that's cool
ah sorry i have dms turned off
20:20
are you trying to get a test validator working?
Avatar
Original message was deleted or could not be loaded.
ohhh so youre doing stuff for main net. still early!
20:22
but yeah im no pro, you might wanna ask someone in #testnet-ops or #cli-wallet-development
Avatar
yessir, figured its best to get ahead and up and running as soon as mainnet is live. thanks for the help, i'll hit up those channels.
💯 1
Avatar
Deleted User 03/10/2021 10:46 AM
Based on the current information
169.85 KB
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
Based on the current information
Avatar
Deleted User 03/10/2021 11:46 AM
I’ll try post the editable version here but yes, I’ll include that as well (edited)
Avatar
Perfect
Avatar
Deleted User 03/10/2021 11:59 AM
🐿️ 1
Keenan pinned a message to this channel. 03/10/2021 12:00 PM
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
Click to see attachment 🖼️
thanks for this
👍 1
Avatar
ugh! I've been noticing horrible problems getting witness receipts back to hotspot challengers, and I was so happy we'd be fixing this in HIP-25 by moving challenge duties to the validators. ... Except we're not. Was this originally in the draft and then struck out at the last minute? I'm wondering why I thought Validators would be fixing the challenge problem.
Avatar
Avatar
jerm
ugh! I've been noticing horrible problems getting witness receipts back to hotspot challengers, and I was so happy we'd be fixing this in HIP-25 by moving challenge duties to the validators. ... Except we're not. Was this originally in the draft and then struck out at the last minute? I'm wondering why I thought Validators would be fixing the challenge problem.
That’s a future improvement that will likely be made
13:33
Initial validators draft is meant to be as simple as possible
Avatar
Avatar
jerm
ugh! I've been noticing horrible problems getting witness receipts back to hotspot challengers, and I was so happy we'd be fixing this in HIP-25 by moving challenge duties to the validators. ... Except we're not. Was this originally in the draft and then struck out at the last minute? I'm wondering why I thought Validators would be fixing the challenge problem.
They will. It’s next. Just wanted to box the first version of work so we can actually ship something
18:34
You know how it is
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
You know how it is
What are you talking about? The testnet is Great Success! No Bugs Found! It’s amazing.
🇺🇸 2
Avatar
I’m mistaken. Apologies
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/10/2021 7:17 PM
What bugs? No bugs here!
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
I’m mistaken. Apologies
It’s understandable, your position requires you to be honest and not hype things. 😂
Avatar
Avatar
jerm
What are you talking about? The testnet is Great Success! No Bugs Found! It’s amazing.
If testnet had zarro boogs found it would be a failure!
Avatar
What are people’s thoughts on HNT validators? Are they the best? Do you guys rec going this way or trying to use an established cloud service a la AWS but maybe not AWS? Thanks for any answers given.
14:26
Is this the right thread for it?
Avatar
Avatar
jk2020
What are people’s thoughts on HNT validators? Are they the best? Do you guys rec going this way or trying to use an established cloud service a la AWS but maybe not AWS? Thanks for any answers given.
validators use cloud services like AWS actually.
Avatar
Thanks Keenan. I will look into it when I can.
Avatar
which Amazon EBS volume types are people using ?
Avatar
Avatar
George
which Amazon EBS volume types are people using ?
These belongs in #testnet-ops , which is about the techincal aspects of running a validator.
Avatar
Avatar
George
which Amazon EBS volume types are people using ?
But...mostly gp2 or gp3 I think (which is cheaper in this use case) some folks are running magnetic storage, I think? Not sure if that is working out or not.
Avatar
woops i meant to post it there
Avatar
Avatar
krby
But...mostly gp2 or gp3 I think (which is cheaper in this use case) some folks are running magnetic storage, I think? Not sure if that is working out or not.
Actually, someone did a writeup. gp3 is cheaper over gp2 with the same IOPS/throughput in every use case. (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
Click to see attachment 🖼️
relativebilanz 03/13/2021 7:15 AM
This is awesome, thanks for this! I am looking to find a VaaS to stake HNT... are any of them live yet? looks like waitlist for most... when are we expecting it to be up?
Avatar
Avatar
relativebilanz
This is awesome, thanks for this! I am looking to find a VaaS to stake HNT... are any of them live yet? looks like waitlist for most... when are we expecting it to be up?
Deleted User 03/13/2021 7:17 AM
Check their websites. That chart is mostly accurate for full stakers. Also, if you have any questions those vendors have channels in this discord😉
👍 1
Avatar
relativebilanz 03/13/2021 7:18 AM
By full staker you mean 10k validator level? Yup will check out and ask the vendors directly 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
relativebilanz
By full staker you mean 10k validator level? Yup will check out and ask the vendors directly 🙂
I believe that is what it means
👍 1
08:51
How are people solving staking pools and trust? I assume you have to trust the vendor with the staking wallet with the current implementation
Avatar
Is there an incentive in HNT to participate in the validator testnet? Will the TNT be converted in HNT in the future somehow?
😆 3
🤣 3
🚫 1
Avatar
Ok, so what's the incentive to participate in the testnet? Pure altruistic, or there will be a reward to cover the costs?
Avatar
you will be more ready when the time comes, less likely to make a costly mistake. the more people who participate, the more realistic the testing, and the more likely the feature is high quality when it lands
👍 1
11:30
also it might happen sooner if we have a good test pool
Avatar
Ok, cool!
Avatar
Will this HIP require you to update current/older hotspot firmware?
Avatar
Avatar
Aled
Will this HIP require you to update current/older hotspot firmware?
all hotspots get regular OTA updates anyway so probably yes this will require a firmware update but those happen roughly weekly anyway
Avatar
Avatar
para1
all hotspots get regular OTA updates anyway so probably yes this will require a firmware update but those happen roughly weekly anyway
I see, thankyou!!
Avatar
Predictions for total # of validators that will be online by the time main net goes live for validators?
Avatar
Avatar
kevinooo
Predictions for total # of validators that will be online by the time main net goes live for validators?
I'm thinking 500 at launch or within a couple of weeks. Ramping quickly from there.
Avatar
Avatar
kwatkins99
I'm thinking 500 at launch or within a couple of weeks. Ramping quickly from there.
We're at 461 right now though vinod
Avatar
Avatar
kevinooo
We're at 461 right now though vinod
Then, will be more than I thought.
Avatar
Avatar
kevinooo
We're at 461 right now though vinod
461 is all the staking pools + committed VaaS customers?
Avatar
simonfuture2 03/14/2021 7:44 PM
im trying to get my validator setup. oon testnet. stil waiting for my hotspts to come in. but i was able to setup my helium wallet
Avatar
Optimetrics 03/14/2021 7:45 PM
Try #testnet-ops
Avatar
per this hip - how many validators will be in each consensus group? will it increase from 16?
Avatar
as many as we can manage
Avatar
Any range that is most likely?
Avatar
things are working great right now with 25 but we'd love to hit 50 - 60 if we could
20:17
later, when we've had more time to work on it, we might manage bigger groups
Avatar
understood. Thanks
Avatar
Avatar
evan
461 is all the staking pools + committed VaaS customers?
I must be mistaken then. According to https://explorer.helium.wtf/validators there are only 336 validators as of now right?
The current and most recent hotspots that have been elected to be part of a consensus group
Avatar
The 341 number from that page is all the testnet validators right? I assume there will be some gain/ some loss going to actual validators?
Avatar
yeah, I don't think that's particularly representaive
Avatar
Will election interval times change with this hip?
09:44
I just have things tuned weirdly for the testnet
💪 1
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
The 341 number from that page is all the testnet validators right? I assume there will be some gain/ some loss going to actual validators?
I don't know why someone would bother with testnet and not go into mainnet. I can think of reasons to skip testnet and wait for mainnet.
Avatar
Avatar
kwatkins99
I don't know why someone would bother with testnet and not go into mainnet. I can think of reasons to skip testnet and wait for mainnet.
jas_williams 03/15/2021 10:01 AM
there are a number of people who jumped in for interest who may not have the required funds to stake the 10k HNT of mainnet
Avatar
Just for fun I guess. Didn't think of that. They could join a pool that would contribute fractionally to the number of validators.
Avatar
Avatar
kwatkins99
I don't know why someone would bother with testnet and not go into mainnet. I can think of reasons to skip testnet and wait for mainnet.
Wanting to contribute to the success of Helium is a good enough reason for me.
Avatar
Thank you for your contribution!
Avatar
Avatar
kwatkins99
Thank you for your contribution!
I'll be on main net too, don't get me wrong!
Avatar
I will be on main net as part of a pool.
Avatar
I'm thinking cooldown period of 5 months is pretty steep. Especially that it is extremely difficult to know how many validators are going to be online, hence earnings are completely unpredictable. It could be a great investment or could be a horrible one. The way it's structured doesn't give much information in terms of making an educated decision. This also encourages the scenario of the "rich get richer" as the only people that can commit to such a long time are people with loads of money. Some people don't care for that amount of funds and this could create a "rich validator elite". Just a thought, this should be revisited IMO.
👍 1
Avatar
our current thinking is 3 months going down to less time as the pool hits a certain point
19:53
there's some support for a sliding window based on the size of the pool
Avatar
My suggestion to make this more approachable would be to limit the possibility of unstaking for at least 5 months from the moment one decides to stake. Meaning each time someone needs to commit to at least 5 months - that will limit the volatility in validators. But not letting someone get access back to their funds for 5 months and without any compensation as well? Thats pretty much robbery. In no place funds are held without any compensation/interest
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
evan
thanks
Not sure what you mean by that TBH
Avatar
your objections has been noted
19:55
sorry, tired
19:56
(it is not new)
Avatar
Gotcha. I think a further community/Helium personnel discussion on this topic could be beneficial. And please don't get me wrong - I truly believe in this network - I'm one of the early adopters back in 2019 before HNT was worth anything. I'm just rising the fact that someone could truly believe in the network but still need access to their funds because of different life events
👍 1
Avatar
you can sell your stake to anyone who is interested
19:59
that's the easiest way to get out quickly at the current time
20:00
no cool down at all, but you might be forced to take a haircut depending on the buyer
Avatar
Avatar
evan
you can sell your stake to anyone who is interested
Its much less liquid and you might have difficulty finding someone that would be able/willing to drop so much money
Avatar
Avatar
evan
no cool down at all, but you might be forced to take a haircut depending on the buyer
exactly, which isn't really fair for someone that was contributing to the network (edited)
Avatar
I get it
20:01
we've been over this many, many times
20:02
I suspect that when it's smaller (it will probably never actually be 5 months) it won't matter as mych
20:02
but there will be another call nailing down the final vars
20:02
I encourage you to join it and express your opinion there, when it gets scheduled
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I encourage you to join it and express your opinion there, when it gets scheduled
Will do, where will timing be announced?
Avatar
we will announce the call in here, and probably in the validator announcements channel
👍 2
Avatar
Thanks for hearing my rant😅 (edited)
Avatar
no worries
20:04
sorry for being curt
20:05
fan-in problem
Avatar
All good man
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/16/2021 6:39 AM
I will say @Helium United I do wonder how many we will get, that 500 figure floating around is 5million hnt to be locked up
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
I will say @Helium United I do wonder how many we will get, that 500 figure floating around is 5million hnt to be locked up
Helium United 03/16/2021 6:40 AM
Do you think that estimate is high? Low? About right?
Avatar
Avatar
Helium United
Do you think that estimate is high? Low? About right?
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/16/2021 6:40 AM
It's anybody's guess , if their "free" to bring up on testnet then is that a valid sample?
Avatar
Helium United 03/16/2021 6:41 AM
Bringing a convo over from #testnet-ops chat. I was discussing the challenge for individual stalkers obtaining 10k HNT without moving price due to low liquidity on exchanges.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/16/2021 6:41 AM
The idea is mostly as long as we hit the 100 were good
Avatar
Helium United 03/16/2021 6:42 AM
There was concern for the same with ETH2, but liquidity for getting 32 ETH wasn’t a challenge so, although pricey, it was relatively simple and easy to obtain 32 ETH. Not the case with 10k HNT and I think that will cause issues as discussions about HIP-25 continue.
Avatar
Helium United 03/16/2021 6:50 AM
Any concern with centralization of validators due to challenge for interested, individual validators securing 10k HNT? If the pooled services are running the majority of validators, it’s gonna become a centralized blockchain, yes? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Helium United
There was concern for the same with ETH2, but liquidity for getting 32 ETH wasn’t a challenge so, although pricey, it was relatively simple and easy to obtain 32 ETH. Not the case with 10k HNT and I think that will cause issues as discussions about HIP-25 continue.
Confused about this part - how is it difficult from a liquidity perspective to acquire 10k HNT?
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Confused about this part - how is it difficult from a liquidity perspective to acquire 10k HNT?
Helium United 03/16/2021 7:05 AM
Liquidity. There isn’t enough on exchanges at current price level. A single entity wanting to acquire 10k HNT would drastically effect the price and cause unnecessary fluctuations.
Avatar
I don’t agree. In general don’t have that concern around centralization
Avatar
Helium United 03/16/2021 7:06 AM
Where as with ETH, I can obtain 32 of them to stake my ETH2 validator without so much as causing a blip in price.
Avatar
Just look at the 15M chart on your favorite HNT exchange and moving 10k is a pretty common experience without huge variance
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
I don’t agree. In general don’t have that concern around centralization
Helium United 03/16/2021 7:08 AM
Obtaining 10k HNT is separate from centralization convo. But if it’s not possible for individual validators to effectively get 10k HNT then it will end up being a centralized blockchain primarily run by staking service providers.
Avatar
Aside from the cost there is nothing stopping anyone buying 10k HNT today
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Just look at the 15M chart on your favorite HNT exchange and moving 10k is a pretty common experience without huge variance
Helium United 03/16/2021 7:09 AM
I’ve not seen any orders on Binance.com or Binance.US for more than a few hundred HNT at a time. (edited)
Avatar
That is typical for every cryptocurrency. Look at the volume of orders in a 15 minute candle for example
07:10
Looking at the order book won’t get you very far due to bots and automation
Avatar
Helium United 03/16/2021 7:11 AM
I’m talking about a single entity wanting to acquire HNT, not the entire order book. If I went in and placed a market order for 10k HNT price would hit $10. That’s not good.
Avatar
No it wouldn’t
👀 1
07:12
For example 24000 HNT was sold on Binance in the last 15 minute candle and the price went down $0.094
07:13
And the candle before that 27000 was bought and it went up $0.095
Avatar
Helium United 03/16/2021 7:14 AM
Sure. From small single orders. Not a massive 10k order.
facepalm 1
Avatar
Your 10k order is a bunch of small orders
💯 1
07:15
Anyway, I can show many more examples to refute the point
Avatar
Helium United 03/16/2021 7:17 AM
All good. I appreciate your engaging the convo. 👍
Avatar
It would be fun if buying $75k of an asset that is trading $10M+ daily caused the price to move 30% or more. But that is not the current reality
🙃 2
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/16/2021 7:28 AM
I think he's trying to say more that 10k isn't what it used to be when we thought of that figure
07:28
And it's priced a lot out
Avatar
There have been various suggestions about how to tie it to something but none of them seem to have gotten any momentum (edited)
👍 1
👆 1
Avatar
The 10k orders not seen in the order book. They are likely breaking them up ino smaller orders. I think there has been an effect on price, nonetheless
Avatar
Look at the increase in volume the last 10 days or so.
Avatar
i mean, obviously more buyers increases the price. im more saying that an individual purchase of 10k HNT is not going to cause the price to spike 30%
Avatar
We should probably test this theory just to be sure. Anyone want to give me money to make a 10K HNT order?
Avatar
I will sell 10k at 10 dollars to test in the opposite direction
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
I think he's trying to say more that 10k isn't what it used to be when we thought of that figure
Helium United 03/16/2021 9:29 AM
This too. At 10k HNT, running a solo validator will be a whales game. Most people will have to use a SaaS option.
Avatar
Avatar
Helium United
This too. At 10k HNT, running a solo validator will be a whales game. Most people will have to use a SaaS option.
ethereum is 32 eth. just sayin
Avatar
Deleted User 03/16/2021 9:44 AM
This again facepalm
👍 1
facepalm 1
Avatar
Avatar
kwatkins99
The 10k orders not seen in the order book. They are likely breaking them up ino smaller orders. I think there has been an effect on price, nonetheless
I can confirm this, at least on the sell side. I placed a limit order for 1000HNT a while ago and it actually cleared at as several separate trades, which is what I expected. It's how other security markets behave.
Avatar
Of course. Because there very fewbuy orders over 1000. Occasionally there is a buy order for about 3300. And rarely is there a 10k order.
Avatar
this is definitely heading into trading territory. let's stay on topic here.
Avatar
it-service(radioactive) 03/16/2021 12:47 PM
Just an idea , if someone wants to setup a validator on main net but does not have HNT to stake isn't it possible to stake it from validator rewards and till the validator does not reach those 10k to stake it would not be possible to withdraw any HNT. If the owner decides not to keep going on with the validator then all HNT earned by this validator will be burned. This way more ppl could have interest to maintain a validator and keep it update cause if not the time to grab the earnings will be delayed in time. Just a thought!!! But could be a option.
Avatar
Deleted User 03/16/2021 1:13 PM
10k HNT? How much is the return?
Avatar
Avatar
Deleted User
10k HNT? How much is the return?
Avatar
Deleted User 03/16/2021 1:17 PM
Thanks @Keenan
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
usurper
Noooooooo.
lmao. just let it happen. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
usurper
Noooooooo.
Deleted User 03/16/2021 1:23 PM
What happened?
Avatar
That graph just leaves a bit to be desired is all. But I do see that a caveat line has been added underneath, which I think is great. It's not lying, it is a completely accurate graph. But it's tough to say its an APR when the halving is only 5 months out.
Avatar
Deleted User 03/16/2021 1:25 PM
Will it go up or down?
Avatar
There are some models showing returns over time pinned in this channel.
Avatar
Jeremiahlee 03/16/2021 1:37 PM
Can someone point to me to an explanation of how over-staking and slashing will help the "social" problems in today's announcement? My understanding of overstaking is staking more HNT to increase probability of being selected (aka the rich get richer). What is slashing? Are there other social problems other than people not updating their testnet servers fast enough?
Avatar
Adam | No Stable No Fun 03/16/2021 1:44 PM
I believe overstaking will prevent you from going under 10k if you get slashed for not participating
Avatar
Avatar
Jeremiahlee
Can someone point to me to an explanation of how over-staking and slashing will help the "social" problems in today's announcement? My understanding of overstaking is staking more HNT to increase probability of being selected (aka the rich get richer). What is slashing? Are there other social problems other than people not updating their testnet servers fast enough?
Slashing is penalizing a validator through irrevocably taking away some of their stake for poor performance or bad behavior. It is a common practice in cryptos. The thought is that slashing could be designed to penalize people for not upgrading, among other things
👍 2
Avatar
Adam | No Stable No Fun 03/16/2021 1:45 PM
Slashing is getting rewards cut or put in timeout for not participating as a validators bc you aren’t keeping things up to date
👍 1
Avatar
Jeremiahlee 03/16/2021 1:50 PM
@PaulM @Adam | No Stable No Fun Thanks! Slashing makes sense. I would oppose overstaking though.
Avatar
a proposed version of overstaking is to just allow room for slashing. no rewards benefit
Avatar
Jeremiahlee 03/16/2021 1:51 PM
Ah, ok. That would be fine then.
Avatar
ie. stake 11k in case you get slashed 1k over time, etc
Avatar
Jeremiahlee 03/16/2021 1:52 PM
Is the slashing permanent? Or for just a time period?
Avatar
tbd i think? there's a lot to think through before any slashing could be implemented
Avatar
hence it would be a lot better if people would UPDATE
👍 2
Avatar
unfortunately we've got the wHaT aBoUt mAliCioUs cOdE crew in here on a testnet
🍉 1
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
unfortunately we've got the wHaT aBoUt mAliCioUs cOdE crew in here on a testnet
Adam | No Stable No Fun 03/16/2021 2:07 PM
What are the %?
Avatar
not sure, seems relatively small
Avatar
Adam | No Stable No Fun 03/16/2021 2:08 PM
So majority are updating no issues?!
Avatar
yea, although that's not really helpful in this setting as the changes are so major from version to version, and if old versions are still lingering around in the CG it can take forever to actually test the changes
Avatar
if someone never updates on testnet, what are our options? restart testnet?
Avatar
not sure, i think some work is being done
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
unfortunately we've got the wHaT aBoUt mAliCioUs cOdE crew in here on a testnet
I think there are some valid concerns around auto-update mechanisms (none of which are valid on testnet IMHO), but it's usually addressed with something like deferred updates? e.g. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/defer-feature-updates-in-windows-10-770c0ea8-eee5-ae25-f695-8e33f541e04d The question is whether people's apathy on testnet will be a thing on mainnet. The conservative answer is "yes", and then slashing (plus contingency overstaking) make sense. Just a long winded way of saying I think the proposals in today's announcement are optimal (side benefit that slashing could also disincentivize downtime and double signing?)
Use Windows Update options to defer features and quality updates in Windows 10.
Avatar
yea, optimally there is some protocol driven way to understand what the 'right' version to be on is and either don't reward or slash those that aren't keeping up. easier said than done though on all parts
Avatar
short on magic wands?
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
unfortunately we've got the wHaT aBoUt mAliCioUs cOdE crew in here on a testnet
There's a subtle diff here. Many of us already have to trust code from Helium to mine (including CG participation), that's how the hotspots work. The "malicious code" danger I was worried about was auto-updating the update script itself, when that update script is just something hosted on some random not-Helium GitHub repo. Easy for individuals to solve though and still leave the overall autoupdate of validator code working.
Avatar
don't get me wrong, i agree with it entirely in a production/real HNT setting. but for a testnet it's just wasting everyones time
👍 1
Avatar
Question to the community on validators and HNT. If i had a theoretical 20K NHT, would i be better off with 2 nodes with 10K each or one node with 20K each
16:27
(Disregarding cost of additional nodes, assume it's free)
Avatar
Avatar
Yev
(Disregarding cost of additional nodes, assume it's free)
At least initially, you will not be able to stake more than 10K per validator, so no choice but 2 x 10K. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
krby
At least initially, you will not be able to stake more than 10K per validator, so no choice but 2 x 10K. (edited)
Thank you, was not aware it was a hard limit of exactly 10K
Avatar
It may not always be, but AFAICT for the initial launch it is.
Avatar
Just to be sure, there is no requirement that the validator node stays up during unstake cooldown, right? I feel like this make it kinda ambiguous: 🤔
If you unstake tokens the validator node enters a cooldown period. During this cooldown period the validator node will not earn rewards and at the end of the cooldown period
https://docs.helium.com/mine-hnt/validators/validator-wallet/#unstake-tokens
Avatar
Avatar
Helium United
This too. At 10k HNT, running a solo validator will be a whales game. Most people will have to use a SaaS option.
If a smaller amount of HNT would be allowed, then a lot more validators would join - remember that only 6% of HNT is distributed to consensus groups. If everyone could be a validator so easily then the cost of operating a good and fast validator wouldn't justify the HNT you would be earning from an ROI standpoint. The only way to make it work would probably be a crapy slow low cost computer that you don't need to pay for hosting - which would make the network slow, and defeat the whole purpose of this hip. This is just a scenario that could occur if the staked amount would be reduced IMO. My main issue is the cool down period that makes zero sense to me nor is it fair to hold someones funds for a period of 5 months without any compensation - for the reasons I explained above last night with my convo with evan. There are many ways to limit the volatility of validators, while keeping it fair for everyone. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Dave T
Just to be sure, there is no requirement that the validator node stays up during unstake cooldown, right? I feel like this make it kinda ambiguous: 🤔
If you unstake tokens the validator node enters a cooldown period. During this cooldown period the validator node will not earn rewards and at the end of the cooldown period
https://docs.helium.com/mine-hnt/validators/validator-wallet/#unstake-tokens
no, there's no expectation around that
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
evan
no, there's no expectation around that
I made a lil PR to clarify, comments welcome 🙂 https://github.com/helium/docs/pull/249 (edited)
Make it explicit that the validator node shouldn't be running once it has been unstaked.
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
If a smaller amount of HNT would be allowed, then a lot more validators would join - remember that only 6% of HNT is distributed to consensus groups. If everyone could be a validator so easily then the cost of operating a good and fast validator wouldn't justify the HNT you would be earning from an ROI standpoint. The only way to make it work would probably be a crapy slow low cost computer that you don't need to pay for hosting - which would make the network slow, and defeat the whole purpose of this hip. This is just a scenario that could occur if the staked amount would be reduced IMO. My main issue is the cool down period that makes zero sense to me nor is it fair to hold someones funds for a period of 5 months without any compensation - for the reasons I explained above last night with my convo with evan. There are many ways to limit the volatility of validators, while keeping it fair for everyone. (edited)
FWIW I think there was some chat in #hip-24-reward-splitting about this kinda stuff, and that launching with 10K requirement doesn't preclude a different approach in future. Also, just speaking for myself, I'm seriously considering reaching out to a few friends to pool together the HNT and run one.
Avatar
Avatar
Dave T
FWIW I think there was some chat in #hip-24-reward-splitting about this kinda stuff, and that launching with 10K requirement doesn't preclude a different approach in future. Also, just speaking for myself, I'm seriously considering reaching out to a few friends to pool together the HNT and run one.
You ok with the fact that the moment you want out, you need to wait 5 months until you get your HNT back, and during that time you are not participating in consensus groups anymore nor earning anything? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
You ok with the fact that the moment you want out, you need to wait 5 months until you get your HNT back, and during that time you are not participating in consensus groups anymore nor earning anything? (edited)
I'm okay enough that I'm still considering it, but of course personally I'd prefer if it were much shorter 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
Dave T
I'm okay enough that I'm still considering it, but of course personally I'd prefer if it were much shorter 🙂
To my understanding this is to limit volatility in the amount of validators, but you can achieve the same thing by making a staker commit for at least 5 months. Then let unstake at any point. Then if you stake again its 5 months commitment once more. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
To my understanding this is to limit volatility in the amount of validators, but you can achieve the same thing by making a staker commit for at least 5 months. Then let unstake at any point. Then if you stake again its 5 months commitment once more. (edited)
Optimetrics 03/16/2021 5:28 PM
It's a VERY important part of the network. If you're that worried about 5 months I don't think you should run a validator. Too scared to be reliable.
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
To my understanding this is to limit volatility in the amount of validators, but you can achieve the same thing by making a staker commit for at least 5 months. Then let unstake at any point. Then if you stake again its 5 months commitment once more. (edited)
as was discussed before, you can end up in a situation where you have lots of 'turbulence' in the validator pool, as the smart thing to do would be to have several validators staked so that you have overlapping periods. im not sure if that's optimal
Avatar
Avatar
Optimetrics
It's a VERY important part of the network. If you're that worried about 5 months I don't think you should run a validator. Too scared to be reliable.
This is not a question of scared. Helium calls itself "the peoples network" does it not? Forcing someone to keep such a high amount of money tied up for an exuberant amount of money that isn't being compensated for limits this to the rich elite that can spare that amount of money. Has nothing to do with reliability. The only other place that you "lend" money without interest is to the IRS until you get your tax return. You want to reduce volatility? Understandable. I just explained above how it would be possible without the negative effect of limiting people from becoming validators. Someone willing to put aside 10K HNT for 5 months definitely believes in the network - but life happens and sometimes you need to pull out. At least ordinary people with a normal net worth
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
as was discussed before, you can end up in a situation where you have lots of 'turbulence' in the validator pool, as the smart thing to do would be to have several validators staked so that you have overlapping periods. im not sure if that's optimal
You would get this same senario if people would decide to pull out at any time - 5 months without compensation + they are not being compensated. This could also happen all at once and then what? Make it easier for more people to be able to participate in this = more validators=stronger network (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
You would get this same senario if people would decide to pull out at any time - 5 months without compensation + they are not being compensated. This could also happen all at once and then what? Make it easier for more people to be able to participate in this = more validators=stronger network (edited)
Optimetrics 03/16/2021 5:37 PM
If quality didn't matter we'd still want to just run all this processing on the hotspots.
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
This is not a question of scared. Helium calls itself "the peoples network" does it not? Forcing someone to keep such a high amount of money tied up for an exuberant amount of money that isn't being compensated for limits this to the rich elite that can spare that amount of money. Has nothing to do with reliability. The only other place that you "lend" money without interest is to the IRS until you get your tax return. You want to reduce volatility? Understandable. I just explained above how it would be possible without the negative effect of limiting people from becoming validators. Someone willing to put aside 10K HNT for 5 months definitely believes in the network - but life happens and sometimes you need to pull out. At least ordinary people with a normal net worth
I'm inclined to say I'm coming around to this position... As someone who's considering being an individual staker this would definitely tip me from not sure if I can financially justify this to I'd love to support the network. ... assuming of course, that switching from cooldown = 5 months to cooldown = min(5 months) (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Dave T
I'm inclined to say I'm coming around to this position... As someone who's considering being an individual staker this would definitely tip me from not sure if I can financially justify this to I'd love to support the network. ... assuming of course, that switching from cooldown = 5 months to cooldown = min(5 months) (edited)
Optimetrics 03/16/2021 5:38 PM
How fast are you going to drop out of the network when the price cuts in half?
Avatar
Avatar
Dave T
I'm inclined to say I'm coming around to this position... As someone who's considering being an individual staker this would definitely tip me from not sure if I can financially justify this to I'd love to support the network. ... assuming of course, that switching from cooldown = 5 months to cooldown = min(5 months) (edited)
I’m curious what a shorter lockout period would do for you here. 3 months? 2 months? 5 months was just arbitrarily chosen and not final afaik
Avatar
Optimetrics 03/16/2021 5:40 PM
The point is there is no incentive to stay in after 5 months when things look rough.
Avatar
Avatar
Optimetrics
How fast are you going to drop out of the network when the price cuts in half?
Thats every individuals decision to make. But your validator pool will be much larger. and people that will stay will be more compensated as less validators are competing.
Avatar
Avatar
Optimetrics
If quality didn't matter we'd still want to just run all this processing on the hotspots.
Also how does this effect quality? 10K insures not every joe will join, plus you're locking it up for 5 months, shows a commitment. no reason to lock up HNT for 5 months after without any compensation. Instead if incentivizing people to become validators you limit this to people that are rich and don't care.
Avatar
Avatar
Optimetrics
The point is there is no incentive to stay in after 5 months when things look rough.
This is fair. How about something like rolling 5 month lock in? So every 5 months you may unstake? edit: 'rolling' was a terrible term 🤪 (edited)
Avatar
we have no mechanism to hang it on
Avatar
Avatar
Optimetrics
The point is there is no incentive to stay in after 5 months when things look rough.
In a scenario where you have a lot of validators, you will NEVER have everyone pulling out all at once. There is always someone "buying the dip" plus people who would stay would be incentivised because now they earn more HNT. Especially if they believe long term so it dosn't matter to them. (edited)
17:45
I'm just referring to the fact the someone needs funds because of a life emergency or needs to pull out for what ever reason. There is no reason not to let them pull out after contributing 5 months (or more). If they want to restake then its 5 months again. This will also limit the in and out
➕ 1
Avatar
Avatar
evan
we have no mechanism to hang it on
sorry, I edited my reply, I shouldn't have said 'rolling', that was confusing
Avatar
a lock-in period wouldn't be awful
💪 1
Avatar
Oh, I just realized why this feels much more manageable to me as an potential individual: It's very close to a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_deposit
A certificate of deposit (CD) is a time deposit, a financial product commonly sold by banks, thrift institutions, and credit unions. CDs differ from savings accounts in that the CD has a specific, fixed term (often one, three, or six months, or one to five years) and usually, a fixed interest rate. The bank expects CD to be held until maturity, ...
Avatar
Avatar
Optimetrics
The point is there is no incentive to stay in after 5 months when things look rough.
Plus the incentive of this whole operation started without knowing what you would get out of it. $500 for a hotspot that mines something that dosn't have any value? heck, people are walking around with mappers that cost $300+ for free because they believe in the network. People are spending time and money on testnet without anything but belief and incentive to make the network work. Point is you don't need to twist someones arm to keep him onboard. It's called "the peoples network" (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Dave T
Oh, I just realized why this feels much more manageable to me as an potential individual: It's very close to a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_deposit
This is completely different. You're money is locked up but the whole time it is locked up you are earning something. The way the hip is currently constructed you would go 5 months without any compensation
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
This is completely different. You're money is locked up but the whole time it is locked up you are earning something. The way the hip is currently constructed you would go 5 months without any compensation
I'm not sure what the 'This' is in your message? If 'this' is the current HIP 25 proposal then yes, I agree entirely.
Avatar
Optimetrics 03/16/2021 5:54 PM
I flatly disagree with your proposal. I get what you're saying but I don't see it that way. I'm not going to try to convince you. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Dave T
I'm not sure what the 'This' is in your message? If 'this' is the current HIP 25 proposal then yes, I agree entirely.
Referring to the CD you compared the hip to
Avatar
Avatar
Optimetrics
I flatly disagree with your proposal. I get what you're saying but I don't see it that way. I'm not going to try to convince you. (edited)
To each his own. Should be openly discussed
Avatar
Re: “the people’s network” - we should all care much more about security and stability than accessibility. That 94% of the rewards are not going to the validator people makes it people enough as far as I’m concerned
🍉 1
17:57
It’s possible they are not exclusive ideas, but I’m not sure
Avatar
Plus, it's not a matter of convincing. This channel is to discuss the hip. If you have valid points that nullify what i'm saying it's important to speak them out. "Flatly" disagreeing dosn't provide any extra value to the discussion - why have this group at all then?
Avatar
Optimetrics 03/16/2021 5:59 PM
Why stake anything yahav?
17:59
More validators = better network right?
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Re: “the people’s network” - we should all care much more about security and stability than accessibility. That 94% of the rewards are not going to the validator people makes it people enough as far as I’m concerned
Once again, no one here is providing an answer how my proposal would make the network unsecure. On the contrary, you would have way more validators.
Avatar
Avatar
Optimetrics
More validators = better network right?
Exactly. Make it possible for more people to participate
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
Once again, no one here is providing an answer how my proposal would make the network unsecure. On the contrary, you would have way more validators.
% of circulating supply locked is the most useful security metric in proof of stake networks . Number of validators is not particularly valuable beyond a reasonable threshold
💯 2
Avatar
Avatar
Optimetrics
Why stake anything yahav?
I believe in the network. I think HNT will be worth a lot in the future. I joined the network as an early adopter at 2019 and havn't sold a single token yet. I want to be able to participate in this.
Avatar
The whole point of the system is to make it prohibitively expensive to acquire enough staking power (ie. HNT) to overpower the network. If it’s free/cheap/easy you get less of that. Number of validators is the wrong metric to think around
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
The whole point of the system is to make it prohibitively expensive to acquire enough staking power (ie. HNT) to overpower the network. If it’s free/cheap/easy you get less of that. Number of validators is the wrong metric to think around
Optimetrics 03/16/2021 6:02 PM
bingo
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
% of circulating supply locked is the most useful security metric in proof of stake networks . Number of validators is not particularly valuable beyond a reasonable threshold
Please provide where you saw this information.
Avatar
You’ll have to do your own research on this
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
You’ll have to do your own research on this
You shot something out of your hip and say go research it. good job lol. If you have something this is based on it shouldn't be hard to produce
Avatar
deasydoesit 03/16/2021 6:04 PM
Let's be nice to each other lol
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
The whole point of the system is to make it prohibitively expensive to acquire enough staking power (ie. HNT) to overpower the network. If it’s free/cheap/easy you get less of that. Number of validators is the wrong metric to think around
My suggestion dosn't counter any of this. You would still need to acquire 10K, you would still need to commit to a long period of time.
Avatar
I don’t have time to type out 10+ years of proof of stake research on my phone. It’s out there. We are far from the first network to have these debates or implement these systems
😆 1
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
I don’t have time to type out 10+ years of proof of stake research on my phone. It’s out there. We are far from the first network to have these debates or implement these systems
Sorry my friend but this is an obnoxious answer
Avatar
Your tone is offensive. Knock it off
Avatar
I'm not trying to be offensive and sorry if it came across that way. I'm trying to have a valid debate. Your response of needing to type 10+ research could be offensive to me just as much. Not here to offend anyone. But when having a debate and someones answer is go research it - thats not really an answer that leads to a productive discussion.
Avatar
i think validators just isnt for you @yahav thats fine, its definitely not meant to appease everybody. like capcom said, we dont need a lot of validators we need a sufficient number of very dedicated and long lasting validators. and if the VIP's get 6% with diamond hands and dont care about a 5 month lockup then thats a win for the network
💎 2
👐 1
Avatar
My point is that there’s a lot to read about in this field. You have to at least try to read it. I’ve explained my point of view based on the reading I’ve done. I think you should do the same. It’s fine if you disagree
Avatar
Avatar
para1
i think validators just isnt for you @yahav thats fine, its definitely not meant to appease everybody. like capcom said, we dont need a lot of validators we need a sufficient number of very dedicated and long lasting validators. and if the VIP's get 6% with diamond hands and dont care about a 5 month lockup then thats a win for the network
I'm a super early adopter of the network. I'm super passionate about it. I don't like the way this hip is set and just voicing my concerns.
Avatar
and they are heard, I think a majority would disagree with you, there are certainly some people that dont like the 5 month lockin but I bet we get 500+ validators immediately in mainnet with 5 months + 10k HNT no problem... plenty for the network
18:13
if that could have been 510 with different terms, no big deal
Avatar
I don’t know if 5 months is the right number, I don’t think anyone is married to it. maybe it should be 3, or 4, I don’t know
🍉 1
Avatar
there is no right answer, and the only wrong answer is one that results in too small or too unreliable of a validator pool
🍉 1
Avatar
Avatar
para1
if that could have been 510 with different terms, no big deal
That would be guessing though. You would't know how many more you would get. Try a poll or something asking people if they would join one way or the other.
Avatar
cause internet polls are a more accurate way to gauge future behavior? Its built into the HIP that we only switch to validators when we get to 100 so there is a guaranteed minimum to go live and then people will jump in to get a slice of the pie, I think some of the staking services already have commitments for like 100 themselves. Again the goal is not maximize the validator pool, its guarantee a stable minimum (edited)
18:20
If you have an argument why different terms would better guarantee a stable minimum those would be more influential. Loosing out on some people joining the validator or having a smaller but sufficient large validator pool is all fine.
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
My point is that there’s a lot to read about in this field. You have to at least try to read it. I’ve explained my point of view based on the reading I’ve done. I think you should do the same. It’s fine if you disagree
By the way, on the youtube video even talks about the importance of making a validator run on an assessable price wise system, on what system would need to run this, to enable fast scaling.
Avatar
I’m sorry I don’t know what you mean
Avatar
Avatar
para1
If you have an argument why different terms would better guarantee a stable minimum those would be more influential. Loosing out on some people joining the validator or having a smaller but sufficient large validator pool is all fine.
Well one could counter argue that if someone unstakes, he is automatically not contributing to consensus. Technically you could have a bunch of people get scared all at once and boom you have a drop of validators. On the other hand, committing to at least 5 months, insures 5 months of active predictable validators at any giving time. You could even limit the amount of validators that can join in a staggering pattern to insure that at any given moment there is someone that is locked in and actually validating.
18:26
Guys my main point here is the lock up of money without compensation. There are other ways to make this secure, and fair
➕ 1
Avatar
That doesn’t help. Anyway you’re not the first to make this point, I don’t have a ton more to add so going to go get some food
🙏 1
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
That doesn’t help. Anyway you’re not the first to make this point, I don’t have a ton more to add so going to go get some food
And again - didn't mean to offend you man
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
Referring to the CD you compared the hip to
Okay yep, then I think we're in agreement. I'd love to see some actual concrete research on why/whether cooldown-without-rewards actually leads to a more robust network than a CD-esque lock in system.
👌 1
18:29
Boo, I'd hoped Googling "certificate of staking" would find something 😆
Avatar
Avatar
Dave T
Okay yep, then I think we're in agreement. I'd love to see some actual concrete research on why/whether cooldown-without-rewards actually leads to a more robust network than a CD-esque lock in system.
Are you saying you re-up your CD periodically? so its not 5 month minimum, its 5 month then either get out or immediately commit to an additional 5 mo?
Avatar
Avatar
para1
Are you saying you re-up your CD periodically? so its not 5 month minimum, its 5 month then either get out or immediately commit to an additional 5 mo?
Minimum 5 months. You could have let's say a week to decide if you want to commit to more, but it wouldn't be more than a month at a time for example, after you contributed the initial 5 months. something along those lines. Would need to be debated, but first I think there should be awareness that there is an issue here that some people might bring up.
Avatar
so after 5 months then things get volatile most validators will join as soon as it opens and stay you wont get like 100% more validators coming in 6 months from now
Avatar
By the way - just a thought, and i'm no lawyer by any means. But I don't know of any entity that can hold your funds legally without ANY way to get it back. This could lead to potential law suits of people that want/need their funds back - that would hurt helium.
Avatar
Avatar
para1
Are you saying you re-up your CD periodically? so its not 5 month minimum, its 5 month then either get out or immediately commit to an additional 5 mo?
I'd certainly prefer a re-up model to the current proposal.
Avatar
Avatar
para1
so after 5 months then things get volatile most validators will join as soon as it opens and stay you wont get like 100% more validators coming in 6 months from now
You start with 100 - then let every week an additional amount of validators to join. You stagger it in a way that you ensure there will always be someone validating. The way its proposed now does open a possibility that you would have a sudden drop in validators
Avatar
I think a re-up may have similar economic incentives to cooldown, the 5 month minimum then free reign to unstake doesnt work in my mind... again you have to combat transient events.
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
You start with 100 - then let every week an additional amount of validators to join. You stagger it in a way that you ensure there will always be someone validating. The way its proposed now does open a possibility that you would have a sudden drop in validators
Sort if like making whisky/wine. Always know that you have a new batch that you can rely on
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
You start with 100 - then let every week an additional amount of validators to join. You stagger it in a way that you ensure there will always be someone validating. The way its proposed now does open a possibility that you would have a sudden drop in validators
I certainly dont want to control who can join when... let people get in fast, out slow thats the effect we want. So day 2, 100 validators are in 500 more want to get in immediately, what do you do?
Avatar
You make it exclusive and predictable for the newtwork long term. by staggering the join in. People will be less likly to leave also if they need to wait again to get back in because there is a wait list
18:38
You control the flow of validators that MUST stay in the network that way
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
You make it exclusive and predictable for the newtwork long term. by staggering the join in. People will be less likly to leave also if they need to wait again to get back in because there is a wait list
Ok thats a very different mechanism where you have a fixed pool size, you could propose that but its not hip-25
Avatar
Just anecdotally: Prior to getting stuck in to the docs, I naively assumed that it once staked you would be locked in for 5 months and would be potentially be getting in CGs for those 5 months.
Avatar
Avatar
para1
Ok thats a very different mechanism where you have a fixed pool size, you could propose that but its not hip-25
Not a limited amount of validators, just adding more is limited by time. Let's say every week 20 can join. You can still have an unlimited amount of validators. Its just structured in a way that is both predictable to the network, ensuring it will always have validators, and letting people get an out if needed. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Dave T
Just anecdotally: Prior to getting stuck in to the docs, I naively assumed that it once staked you would be locked in for 5 months and would be potentially be getting in CGs for those 5 months.
We’ll definitely need to make it incredibly clear what you’re signing up for. It is definitely not going to work for everybody
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
Dave T
Just anecdotally: Prior to getting stuck in to the docs, I naively assumed that it once staked you would be locked in for 5 months and would be potentially be getting in CGs for those 5 months.
Thats what I thought untill I understood it was the other way around
Avatar
my crystal ball says we will go live as proposed and approved, 10k HNT / 5 month cooldown, like 500 validators will join and everyone wills ay "good enough" and move on it will be imperfect but sufficient (edited)
🔮 1
Avatar
Avatar
para1
my crystal ball says we will go live as proposed and approved, 10k HNT / 5 month cooldown, like 500 validators will join and everyone wills ay "good enough" and move on it will be imperfect but sufficient (edited)
I think that there is a lack of understanding of how this cooldown period works. Its pretty ambiguous the way its documented. a lot of people won't really know what they are getting into, and then there is the law suit potential. Just sain. (edited)
Avatar
agree and certainly more documentation is necessary, as the author of a very complicated HIP it doesn't mean the idea is flawed, just needs lots of work on community education
Avatar
https://www.stakingrewards.com/ some good comparisons here of what other networks do. 500+ validators would be a big number compared to most. I’d expect to have 1000-2000. Also note that % staked is the leading metric there
Research Platform for Proof of Stake assets, Staking Providers, Trusted Blockchain Data, Intelligent Reward Calculator, Journals & Ecosystem Reports - Explore now!
Avatar
Avatar
para1
agree and certainly more documentation is necessary, as the author of a very complicated HIP it doesn't mean the idea is flawed, just needs lots of work on community education
More documentation or a different mechanism that makes it secure and fair. Anyways... I gave it my best shot 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
https://www.stakingrewards.com/ some good comparisons here of what other networks do. 500+ validators would be a big number compared to most. I’d expect to have 1000-2000. Also note that % staked is the leading metric there
do these have the same mechanism that you have to wait to get your coins back for a long period of time without compensation?
Avatar
i think w/ these active discussions and the time required before this is live that those staking 10k HNT will likely know what they're getting into. setting up the validator will require some effort as well. it's not like you're just clicking validate on your phone and you're locked up and illiquid..... maybe it already exists but a simple FAQ of these common questions could be useful.
Avatar
Avatar
E R I K
i think w/ these active discussions and the time required before this is live that those staking 10k HNT will likely know what they're getting into. setting up the validator will require some effort as well. it's not like you're just clicking validate on your phone and you're locked up and illiquid..... maybe it already exists but a simple FAQ of these common questions could be useful.
Could be true. But that still doesn't solve the "Rich running the validation network" problem.
Avatar
ETH2 is locked for longer than 5 months for example (at least that's my understanding, based on certain criteria being met)
Avatar
There’s also already a handful of staking providers that mitigate all of these concerns. And more are coming that we know of
💯 2
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
Could be true. But that still doesn't solve the "Rich running the validation network" problem.
this is solved with staking pools which there are multiple already proposed, 3rd parties can solve this
Avatar
Avatar
E R I K
ETH2 is locked for longer than 5 months for example (at least that's my understanding, based on certain criteria being met)
You still earn interest during that time though
Avatar
Avatar
para1
this is solved with staking pools which there are multiple already proposed, 3rd parties can solve this
Companies getting richer vs the individual person able to do this on "the peoples network". Otherwise its the peoples network validated by the rich and companies
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
You still earn interest during that time though
Optimetrics 03/16/2021 6:52 PM
You should write a proposal.
Avatar
Avatar
Optimetrics
You should write a proposal.
Thanks, but my grammar isn't nearly good enough for that
Avatar
Optimetrics 03/16/2021 6:53 PM
🤷‍♂️
Avatar
honestly i hate "the peoples network"... so many people just throw that out there.. its a marketing campaign, what we really want is an efficient ubiquitous wireless network... I dont care if its 1/2 verizon or not (Nor really do the mechanics of the network or Helium Inc)
💯 1
Avatar
Hmm, I hope this isn't too off-topic, but hypothetically could someone create a service that could 'get around' cool down by paring up people wanting to stake/unstake and using validators transfer to shuffle the stake around wallets? 🤔 (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Dave T
Hmm, I hope this isn't too off-topic, but hypothetically could someone create a service that could 'get around' cool down by paring up people wanting to stake/unstake and using validators transfer to shuffle the stake around wallets? 🤔 (edited)
Yup
Avatar
Avatar
Dave T
Hmm, I hope this isn't too off-topic, but hypothetically could someone create a service that could 'get around' cool down by paring up people wanting to stake/unstake and using validators transfer to shuffle the stake around wallets? 🤔 (edited)
100% and Helium already supports that, itll be there day 1
Avatar
I guess it would be quite a high trust operation without any atomic way to wrap the transaction.
Avatar
There’s already at least one service that will let you stake without even having to transfer your hnt
🤯 1
Avatar
Avatar
Dave T
I guess it would be quite a high trust operation without any atomic way to wrap the transaction.
check out #argon
🙏 1
Avatar
We do actually have HTLC transactions which would be perfect for some of this
Avatar
deasydoesit 03/16/2021 6:59 PM
VaaS. This is honestly way easier than running a pool. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
para1
honestly i hate "the peoples network"... so many people just throw that out there.. its a marketing campaign, what we really want is an efficient ubiquitous wireless network... I dont care if its 1/2 verizon or not (Nor really do the mechanics of the network or Helium Inc)
Marketing campaign? Thats not good publicity. Helium start out with slogans of "Own your city" and "help build the peoples network". You saying everyone was deceived? I wonder how Amir Haleem would feel about that statement TBH. I could be wrong (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
Marketing campaign? Thats not good publicity. Helium start out with slogans of "Own your city" and "help build the peoples network". You saying everyone was deceived? I wonder how Amir Haleem would feel about that statement TBH. I could be wrong (edited)
I don’t think moving 6% of the rewards to a permissionless validator pool makes something not the people’s network all of a sudden
❕ 1
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
We do actually have HTLC transactions which would be perfect for some of this
Oh boy, another Google rabbit hole for me to go down, thanks! 😆
😂 1
Avatar
Helium home page states in large letters "People-Powered Networks" (edited)
Avatar
now show me where it says that in the blockchain-core repo one is marketing (website) one is network functionality (blockchain) (edited)
Avatar
The network is still people powered, and still the huge majority of the rewards go to hotspots. This is not the right way to frame the decision making
Avatar
we're talking 6% vs. 100% on some other networks right, put some hotspots up and get the bigger piece of the pie is the low hanging fruit.
Avatar
Avatar
para1
now show me where it says that in the blockchain-core repo one is marketing (website) one is network functionality (blockchain) (edited)
All i'm saying is false advertising is bad publicity, not to mention fraud. I don't believe this to be true by the way. The idea is genius to create something run by the people
🙅‍♂️ 1
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
Marketing campaign? Thats not good publicity. Helium start out with slogans of "Own your city" and "help build the peoples network". You saying everyone was deceived? I wonder how Amir Haleem would feel about that statement TBH. I could be wrong (edited)
That guy sucks anyway
😆 4
😳 1
helium 1
Avatar
true im mostly being an a$$... for me I think the focus is too much "but people like ME are "the people" not those other people"
19:05
id prefer to think in the raw mechanics which dont have the concept of "people".. pk's sign things and send them out... thats all it is
Avatar
Optimetrics 03/16/2021 7:05 PM
Individuals who are willing to put up 10k HNT with a 5 month cool down aren't people? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
para1
id prefer to think in the raw mechanics which dont have the concept of "people".. pk's sign things and send them out... thats all it is
You need people to participate. Thats the entire difference between Verizon and this. People lay out the network. You don't have Helium team build large IOT antennas all over.
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
You need people to participate. Thats the entire difference between Verizon and this. People lay out the network. You don't have Helium team build large IOT antennas all over.
deasydoesit 03/16/2021 7:06 PM
Aren’t people doing this?
Avatar
Avatar
Optimetrics
Individuals who are willing to put up 10k HNT with a 5 month cool down aren't people? (edited)
Rich people. Should be available to more
Avatar
go look at a map of hotspot deployment compared with a map of median income to decide how much what there is today represents "the people"... its already the elite crowd.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Optimetrics
Individuals who are willing to put up 10k HNT with a 5 month cool down aren't people? (edited)
You didn’t know? The 5 month cool down makes it a fraudulent corporate run network not by people anymore. If we took it away it’s for people again
😆 3
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
Rich people. Should be available to more
deasydoesit 03/16/2021 7:07 PM
Even assuming this is true, rich people making 6% vs other people making 94% seems pretty equitable, no?
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
You didn’t know? The 5 month cool down makes it a fraudulent corporate run network not by people anymore. If we took it away it’s for people again
Was referring to what para1 said about the marketing
Avatar
what about hst holders then?
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
what about hst holders then?
oh no those VC guys!! 🙂
😆 1
Avatar
Avatar
para1
oh no those VC guys!! 🙂
They definitely deserve to be greatly compensated. I'm a capitalist...
Avatar
deasydoesit 03/16/2021 7:10 PM
Plot twist haha
Avatar
I'm just saying that the main concept here is run by the people. Should be in all aspects
Avatar
Avatar
deasydoesit
Plot twist haha
lol yes pretty odd eh?
😂 1
Avatar
Network security is different. It’s not for consumers. It’s hard and requires IT skills. And it can’t break or everyone is screwed. None of that lends itself to everyday consumers, and it’s not supposed to (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
I'm just saying that the main concept here is run by the people. Should be in all aspects
deasydoesit 03/16/2021 7:12 PM
There are staking pools. One of the larger validator entities is a pool ostensibly “run by the people”. (edited)
Avatar
hotspots are for people with $400, validators are for people with 10,000 HNT.. I really dont see the difference. both are dots on a line, checkout the hotspot map of LA to see if "all people" are really able to participate... can you pick out the rich areas? (edited)
Avatar
Seems like we got off topic. I'm not proposing anything preposterous here. It is possible to achieve a secure network in other ways
Avatar
deasydoesit 03/16/2021 7:14 PM
I think even the Helium team would agree that the 5 month cool down period may be worth reconsidering
Avatar
Avatar
deasydoesit
There are staking pools. One of the larger validator entities is a pool ostensibly “run by the people”. (edited)
Still one validator out of many
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
Still one validator out of many
deasydoesit 03/16/2021 7:14 PM
About 70 validators
Avatar
Avatar
deasydoesit
About 70 validators
They are saying there will be over 500 almost immediately
Avatar
Avatar
deasydoesit
I think even the Helium team would agree that the 5 month cool down period may be worth reconsidering
Yup, was never a set in stone number. Changing the mechanisms also has engineering cost which we can’t afford right now. Switching ASAP is critical
Avatar
deasydoesit 03/16/2021 7:16 PM
^ exactly this. I feel like people aren’t acknowledging that there were technological reasons precipitating the network reconfiguration
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Yup, was never a set in stone number. Changing the mechanisms also has engineering cost which we can’t afford right now. Switching ASAP is critical
That is a valid point as for getting something out fast. 👍 Doesn't mean a better solution shouldn't be talked about.
Avatar
Sure, there’s just 0% chance of any different mechanisms making it into the first version. Changing the numbers sure
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Sure, there’s just 0% chance of any different mechanisms making it into the first version. Changing the numbers sure
Now we are talking! So there is room for further debate later on
Avatar
to my knowledge, there's no plan on retiring the HIP process
💯 1
Avatar
sure always room for a HIP (thats the format needed to bring new validator mechanisms)... and my prediction still stands. https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/798317614879342622/821558864310698015 this will go live, it will work, people will move on
Avatar
deasydoesit 03/16/2021 7:19 PM
Why are there two paras 😂😂
👋 1
Avatar
Avatar
para1
sure always room for a HIP (thats the format needed to bring new validator mechanisms)... and my prediction still stands. https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/798317614879342622/821558864310698015 this will go live, it will work, people will move on
This. Unless community members start writing more code and HIP together
Avatar
link to old straw poll regarding staking amount, if that's still being talked about: https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/798317614879342622/805838338363490354
👆 1
Avatar
If anything you’d want the number to be higher to have more of the supply locked
Avatar
Avatar
para2
link to old straw poll regarding staking amount, if that's still being talked about: https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/798317614879342622/805838338363490354
The debate isn't about the amount, rather the cooldown period in which your HNT is locked up without any compensation
👌 1
19:21
Key words are "without compensation"
Avatar
Funny how the line between “for the people” is so thin though
🤣 3
☝️ 2
19:22
$70k? No problem. People powered. 5 month cool down? Fraudulent corporate POS
⚰️ 1
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
$70k? No problem. People powered. 5 month cool down? Fraudulent corporate POS
You're twisting my words. I didn't say that
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
$70k? No problem. People powered. 5 month cool down? Fraudulent corporate POS
I didn't put 70K to get to the amount of HNT I earned.
Avatar
Only point is everyone’s interpretation of what “people” means is heavily influenced by their own circumstances
Avatar
global median annual household income is ~$10k, cost of hotspot may be out of reach for >50% of all people (edited)
Avatar
I stand by what I said - not talking about Helium being a fraudulent corporation. I'm saying that the rich will be the only ones who can stake such a high amount for so long. Or some poor person with his arm twisted (edited)
Avatar
many of the "rich" bought a hotspot or two a year ago and now have 10k HNT.
Avatar
Avatar
E R I K
many of the "rich" bought a hotspot or two a year ago and now have 10k HNT.
This is funny, i'm used to be scolded at for being too much of a conservative 😆 (edited)
Avatar
To me it seems like the 5 months is just built into the cost. it costs money and time... What if the same CD gave you all the intrest up front on day 1 but said "we are still gonna hold your principal for the length of the CD term"... is that now not fair? So take whatever you earn while valdiator is active, spread it out over the length of time you were a validator + 5 months and that is your APR.
🙌🏼 1
Avatar
Avatar
para1
To me it seems like the 5 months is just built into the cost. it costs money and time... What if the same CD gave you all the intrest up front on day 1 but said "we are still gonna hold your principal for the length of the CD term"... is that now not fair? So take whatever you earn while valdiator is active, spread it out over the length of time you were a validator + 5 months and that is your APR.
Exactly, CD don't work like that
Avatar
not scolding, just saying you viewing it w/ a current lens, lots of the people rich enough were just early adopters and now want to participate in the next stage of the networks evolution.
Avatar
sounds like it would be better if they did! I want all my interest on day 1
Avatar
Avatar
para1
sounds like it would be better if they did! I want all my interest on day 1
Don't we all? 🙂 🙂
Avatar
im just saying CD "feels" fair to you cause you get money spread out but after the CD period you earned X money in Y time... If they paid you all on day 1 its still X money in Y time. Same as validator its just Y time = Y (active) + 5 months. want higher effective APR stay in longer
👆 1
Avatar
I have a lone wolf spot that's earned me nearly 10k
👀 1
19:31
admittedly, it was on the chain the whole time
Avatar
Avatar
para1
im just saying CD "feels" fair to you cause you get money spread out but after the CD period you earned X money in Y time... If they paid you all on day 1 its still X money in Y time. Same as validator its just Y time = Y (active) + 5 months. want higher effective APR stay in longer
The difference is that you can pull your funds out if you need to. You might need to pay a penalty but its still available.
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
The difference is that you can pull your funds out if you need to. You might need to pay a penalty but its still available.
Optimetrics 03/16/2021 7:31 PM
How about no cooldown but 50% stake?
Avatar
Avatar
Optimetrics
How about no cooldown but 50% stake?
Not sure I understand
Avatar
Optimetrics 03/16/2021 7:33 PM
You want to get out without a cooldown - 50% of your stake gets burnt. (edited)
Avatar
I'm actually doing the math wrong
19:34
I added another to that account that gets witnesses occasionally
Avatar
Avatar
Optimetrics
You want to get out without a cooldown - 50% of your stake gets burnt. (edited)
Sure, if its before 5 months. But after that period has matured you should be able to take your HNT back
Avatar
Optimetrics 03/16/2021 7:35 PM
I thought you wanted liquidity?
Avatar
I think a better analogy than a CD is private company stock or partnership buy-in, or private equity... all those give returns to different extent but very difficult to get back your equity/principal even after "being in" for years.... makes 5 months seem immediate. (edited)
Avatar
You can always sell and transfer your stake to someone else rather than unstake it
🍉 1
Avatar
Avatar
Optimetrics
I thought you wanted liquidity?
Maybe I didn't explain right. I'm not saying remove all commitment. I'm saying "once you served" you should be able to go out
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
Maybe I didn't explain right. I'm not saying remove all commitment. I'm saying "once you served" you should be able to go out
and that doesnt address teh concern of the network.. what is stopping 99% of all validators from unstaking when Elon tweets about HNT and it moons. It doesnt address transient events that would cause rapid unstaking (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
You can always sell and transfer your stake to someone else rather than unstake it
Could be difficult and a potential for someone to extort you because you are in a tight spot. Again there are ways to make the network secure with keeping it fair
Avatar
honestly the 5 month hold is what is making me want to stake and leave it in a long time.
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
honestly the 5 month hold is what is making me want to stake and leave it in a long time.
Optimetrics 03/16/2021 7:37 PM
Same.
Avatar
it gives ME security and peace of mind.
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
honestly the 5 month hold is what is making me want to stake and leave it in a long time.
it protects me from myself!
Avatar
and sure, it can be a little shorter. im good with 3 months too. but no shorter.
Avatar
Avatar
E R I K
it protects me from myself!
exactly! lol
Avatar
Avatar
para1
and that doesnt address teh concern of the network.. what is stopping 99% of all validators from unstaking when Elon tweets about HNT and it moons. It doesnt address transient events that would cause rapid unstaking (edited)
exactly, if that happens what will stop people from unstaking and the validator pool dropping rapidly? Stagger the validators joining on. Will ensure the security and stability of the network way better.
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
exactly, if that happens what will stop people from unstaking and the validator pool dropping rapidly? Stagger the validators joining on. Will ensure the security and stability of the network way better.
what about 1.5 years from now when the staggering is done and 99% have served their 5 month term
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
exactly, if that happens what will stop people from unstaking and the validator pool dropping rapidly? Stagger the validators joining on. Will ensure the security and stability of the network way better.
Optimetrics 03/16/2021 7:39 PM
So only the anointed can participate? I thought this was the people's network?
🤣 1
⚰️ 1
Avatar
Avatar
Optimetrics
So only the anointed can participate? I thought this was the people's network?
How does anointed have anything to do with this?
Avatar
Optimetrics 03/16/2021 7:40 PM
Who gets to pick the 100? Who gets to join when?
Avatar
Avatar
Optimetrics
Who gets to pick the 100? Who gets to join when?
The first people that are ready and functioning/a draw. Then keep on onboarding new validators
Avatar
and most importantly.. is your stake locked in to reserve your spot in line (it should be otherwise people just spam the queue) and if so why am I not being paid to sit in this line!! (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
para1
and most importantly.. is your stake locked in to reserve your spot in line (it should be otherwise people just spam the queue) and if so why am I not being paid to sit in this line!! (edited)
First come first serve. no staking needed. 20 spots open every week. whoever gets in gets in
Avatar
who is doing the draw? i dont trust it. probably capcom picking his buddies. /s (edited)
Avatar
id write the hip... but my crystal ball says it wont be approved
Avatar
Avatar
Optimetrics
You should write a proposal.
Optimetrics 03/16/2021 7:42 PM
^
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
First come first serve. no staking needed. 20 spots open every week. whoever gets in gets in
so everybody fork your bot buying video cards to snipe validator positions... you know "for the people"
Avatar
A lot of sarcasm here. Don't think it would be welcomed if it was the other way around
Avatar
my point is someone is going to be upset saying its not fair, no matter how much you try to make it fair.
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
para1
so everybody fork your bot buying video cards to snipe validator positions... you know "for the people"
Even so - you secure the network long term if thats what you re most concernd about
Avatar
the network will be well served by existing HIP-25, 100% as-is, no change needed
Avatar
Avatar
para1
the network will be well served by existing HIP-25, 100% as-is, no change needed
Well yes I guess you don't really need to ask anyone. Can make the decision. Then again, why open this channel?
Avatar
it was open to approve HIP-25, which was approved
Avatar
To be fair you’re a little late here. We’re already many weeks into the implementation
Avatar
deasydoesit 03/16/2021 7:47 PM
Already on like testnet 4 lol
Avatar
It was submitted in January
Avatar
deasydoesit 03/16/2021 7:48 PM
Rip to testnets 1-3, your lessons will always be remembered
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
To be fair you’re a little late here. We’re already many weeks into the implementation
I think you could agree that there is a big difference in continuing to develop something because of budget issues and time, while being open to the possibility that the structure might benefit from some changes, regardless if its practical to implement immediately. Otherwise its like putting your head in the sand because you don't want to deal with the fact that there might have been a better way. (edited)
Avatar
Sure that’s just a different proposal and a different channel, to answer your question of why have this channel
👍 1
Avatar
Optimetrics 03/16/2021 7:51 PM
You should submit a proposal.
👆 3
Avatar
Avatar
Optimetrics
You should submit a proposal.
Doesn't seem like the people here would really like to hear anything different. All good, I might be wrong. If everyone says you're drunk, you probably are
19:54
Regardless of the outcome, I did enjoy this debate - minus the sarcasm here and there 👍
Avatar
Optimetrics 03/16/2021 7:54 PM
It's a small percentage of the community in here.
Avatar
Avatar
Optimetrics
It's a small percentage of the community in here.
True, but let's not kid ourselves. The whole "people's" thing was debunked here pretty much when para1 said what he said. I don't see this passing with so many mods and Helium employees so opposed to it.
Avatar
deasydoesit 03/16/2021 7:57 PM
Who even is para1 aside from being 1/2 the para of para2
19:58
Para2 is the real para imo
😂 3
Avatar
Validators are definitely not for consumers if that’s what you mean. Third parties can fill that role as we’ve discussed, for example Tezos staking on Coinbase
Avatar
Avatar
para1
To me it seems like the 5 months is just built into the cost. it costs money and time... What if the same CD gave you all the intrest up front on day 1 but said "we are still gonna hold your principal for the length of the CD term"... is that now not fair? So take whatever you earn while valdiator is active, spread it out over the length of time you were a validator + 5 months and that is your APR.
This is how I'm modeling it. 5 months of a cash drag. I think the overall return is good with that built in, and I like the network.
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
The difference is that you can pull your funds out if you need to. You might need to pay a penalty but its still available.
There are many types of investments that don't let you have your money right away and depending on the deal don't earn you interest in the meantime, they're not typical retail investments, but they do exist.
Avatar
Avatar
para1
I think a better analogy than a CD is private company stock or partnership buy-in, or private equity... all those give returns to different extent but very difficult to get back your equity/principal even after "being in" for years.... makes 5 months seem immediate. (edited)
This. Many private placement fund things have no guaranteed way to get your principal back before the agreed upon lockup, also I've heard of some that have a 3mo or more between "last interest earned" and money actually coming back to you. Some groups try to accommodate early withdrawal but you sign up knowing it's not guaranteed. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
krby
This. Many private placement fund things have no guaranteed way to get your principal back before the agreed upon lockup, also I've heard of some that have a 3mo or more between "last interest earned" and money actually coming back to you. Some groups try to accommodate early withdrawal but you sign up knowing it's not guaranteed. (edited)
yea I've go a lot of fancy looking paper that supposedly is worth a lot of money but I (and all us "normie shareholders") are banned from transferring or even using as collateral... maybe sometime in the future I can get my ferrari, or ill be old enough for a supped up electric wheelchair, or maybe just make some confetti 🥴 (edited)
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
para1
yea I've go a lot of fancy looking paper that supposedly is worth a lot of money but I (and all us "normie shareholders") are banned from transferring or even using as collateral... maybe sometime in the future I can get my ferrari, or ill be old enough for a supped up electric wheelchair, or maybe just make some confetti 🥴 (edited)
actual paper? So dot.com era! My wife had to send actual certificates someplace during an acquisition once. I think eventually it ended up (through a series of acquisitions) being like 7 shares of Yahoo in an E*Trade account (edited)
Avatar
a little after that but must have been an old timey CFO who didnt realize you dont need paper anymore. You do feel a lot more gratification than a number ticking up in your shareworks account tho
Avatar
man, I got my last big batch of shares in 05 and I didn't get any paper certs
Avatar
gristleking 03/16/2021 8:54 PM
We're probably getting a little off topic here. One perspective on this 5 month freeze is that it appears to encourage only "true believers" to run a Validator. I like that. I want the folks with the tech chops + the HNT + the patience to wait + the belief that they probably won't want to unstake any time soon, and when they do, 5 months won't make a difference.
Avatar
Avatar
Dave T
Just anecdotally: Prior to getting stuck in to the docs, I naively assumed that it once staked you would be locked in for 5 months and would be potentially be getting in CGs for those 5 months.
we definitely want to make it clear for participants about what they're getting into and what it means to unstake, does this make it clear? (we'd add to various docs/content): While a validator earns rewards its stake remains locked. Once a validator has unstaked it enters an unbonding state. During this approximately 5 month (250,000 blocks) unbonding state, the staked amount cannot be transferred or withdrawn and validator nodes do NOT earn rewards. After the unbonding state has passed the original validator stake is returned to the owner’s wallet. FAQ What happens when I unstake a validator node?
 It enters an unbonding state for approximately 5 months (250,000 blocks) and cannot be restaked. During this state the validator node does NOT earn rewards and the staked amount cannot be transferred or withdrawn. After the unbonding state has passed, the stake is returned to the original owner’s wallet.
🙏 2
Avatar
Avatar
cyborg
we definitely want to make it clear for participants about what they're getting into and what it means to unstake, does this make it clear? (we'd add to various docs/content): While a validator earns rewards its stake remains locked. Once a validator has unstaked it enters an unbonding state. During this approximately 5 month (250,000 blocks) unbonding state, the staked amount cannot be transferred or withdrawn and validator nodes do NOT earn rewards. After the unbonding state has passed the original validator stake is returned to the owner’s wallet. FAQ What happens when I unstake a validator node?
 It enters an unbonding state for approximately 5 months (250,000 blocks) and cannot be restaked. During this state the validator node does NOT earn rewards and the staked amount cannot be transferred or withdrawn. After the unbonding state has passed, the stake is returned to the original owner’s wallet.
This does a good job of explaining it
🙏 1
Avatar
Avatar
cyborg
we definitely want to make it clear for participants about what they're getting into and what it means to unstake, does this make it clear? (we'd add to various docs/content): While a validator earns rewards its stake remains locked. Once a validator has unstaked it enters an unbonding state. During this approximately 5 month (250,000 blocks) unbonding state, the staked amount cannot be transferred or withdrawn and validator nodes do NOT earn rewards. After the unbonding state has passed the original validator stake is returned to the owner’s wallet. FAQ What happens when I unstake a validator node?
 It enters an unbonding state for approximately 5 months (250,000 blocks) and cannot be restaked. During this state the validator node does NOT earn rewards and the staked amount cannot be transferred or withdrawn. After the unbonding state has passed, the stake is returned to the original owner’s wallet.
Yes, the only other thing I'd add is a clarification that the validator can/should be shutdown after unstaking, I actually have a PR open for that too 😁 https://github.com/helium/docs/pull/249/files
👍 1
21:49
I think During this state the validator node does NOT earn rewards is what tripped me up at first pass, it read like "oh yeah and you have to run a validator for 5 more months to get your stake back" 🤪
Avatar
thanks for feedback and pr we definitely want folks going in eyes wide open on what it means to stake a validator
21:52
also, although discussions may turn passionate at times, we definitely appreciate the engagement
Avatar
Avatar
cyborg
also, although discussions may turn passionate at times, we definitely appreciate the engagement
A pleasure as always, thanks for all hard work and dedication! 🙏 helium
👊 1
Avatar
Adam | No Stable No Fun 03/17/2021 6:43 AM
This was an awesome debate/discussion to catch up on. < 5 months would be great (3 feels ideal) or allowing the validator to continue to earn during cool down (could even make it a longer cool down if you did that) but in order to move quickly ya gotta take the hip as is. And if that doesn’t work for someone, it doesn’t work. I still think they’ll be 500 validators on day 1 and that means it’s working “enough”
Avatar
Avatar
cyborg
we definitely want to make it clear for participants about what they're getting into and what it means to unstake, does this make it clear? (we'd add to various docs/content): While a validator earns rewards its stake remains locked. Once a validator has unstaked it enters an unbonding state. During this approximately 5 month (250,000 blocks) unbonding state, the staked amount cannot be transferred or withdrawn and validator nodes do NOT earn rewards. After the unbonding state has passed the original validator stake is returned to the owner’s wallet. FAQ What happens when I unstake a validator node?
 It enters an unbonding state for approximately 5 months (250,000 blocks) and cannot be restaked. During this state the validator node does NOT earn rewards and the staked amount cannot be transferred or withdrawn. After the unbonding state has passed, the stake is returned to the original owner’s wallet.
One nit would be to make it clear the rewards are not locked up. Just the initial stake. At least a few people have been confused about that.
👍 1
Avatar
Also, for the record, 250,000 blocks is actually closer to 6 months than 5. More like 5.7 months. (edited)
Avatar
50k is just our round number month stand-in
Avatar
im trying to catch up on all of this, and staking/validators are both new concepts to me. can someone explain these to me like I am a six-year-old, or, is there a better place to find this info?
Avatar
45,000 would be closer - but yeah, i figured there was some generous rounding in there
Avatar
gotta think big, who gets out of bed for less than 4 0s
Avatar
put another way, the unstaking period is roughly 1.5x10^7 seconds
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
put another way, the unstaking period is roughly 1.5x10^7 seconds
maco2035 🐮 03/17/2021 8:03 AM
well blocks is better, because the chain runs on block times.
Avatar
Avatar
CWRocky
im trying to catch up on all of this, and staking/validators are both new concepts to me. can someone explain these to me like I am a six-year-old, or, is there a better place to find this info?
I would suggest reading the HIP in the topic as a start
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
CWRocky
im trying to catch up on all of this, and staking/validators are both new concepts to me. can someone explain these to me like I am a six-year-old, or, is there a better place to find this info?
There are two major roles/function in the Helium network - there is providing coverage which is rewarded by proof of coverage and there is the validation of transactions / production of blocks on the blockchain which is rewarded through consensus rewards. Today, Hotspots do both. With the introduction of validators, hotspots will no longer be tasked with block production and that will become the function of validators. Staking is a requirement to lock up HNT in exchange for the opportunity to participate in block production / consensus and earn rewards. Staking is required to ensure the safety of the network - it makes it hard for any one person/org to control the group.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
maco2035 🐮
well blocks is better, because the chain runs on block times.
This was a joke because evan likes more zeros 🙂
Troll 1
👍 1
Avatar
if you have to talk about pedestrian wall clock times, seconds are preferred
08:07
- signed, someone who finished a deepness the sky the day it was released
Avatar
I see some people complaining 5 months is too long. But there are people who also would want a longer lockup for better network security. Just wanted to throw that out there
09:43
I'd support a longer lockup. Even up to 12 months
Avatar
Deleted User 03/17/2021 9:43 AM
Make it 6 months.
Avatar
I don't want to optimize this network for "hot money" speculators who want to stake and unstake quickly
👍 4
09:44
I think we should optimize for long term believers
Avatar
I personally want to optimize for people willing to give me a cell phone number they're willing to answer at 3am (edited)
😴 1
Avatar
hot money speculators can create a ton of volatility
Avatar
Deleted User 03/17/2021 9:46 AM
These fly-by-night types are in it for the "technology"
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I personally want to optimize for people willing to give me a cell phone number they're willing to answer at 3am (edited)
it-service(radioactive) 03/17/2021 9:46 AM
You can have mine👍
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/17/2021 9:47 AM
I am just saying liquidity is important. And it should be a lock out at the beginning. Not a cool down
Avatar
no one liked my idea that it would be a burn
09:53
you have to admit that it's elegant, though, just gotta earn it out
Avatar
I’d support a 12 month hold, whole point of staking in general is to optimize the network
Avatar
Avatar
maco2035 🐮
I am just saying liquidity is important. And it should be a lock out at the beginning. Not a cool down
I think a minimum stake period does not create the same security that a cool down does. If you have a minimum stake period instead of a cooldown, exchanges can stake user tokens and manage the float much more easily. I believe that exchanges are the biggest security threat to proof of stake security and that we do not want to do anything that makes it easier for exchanges to stake users' HNT
10:04
Exchanges present a centralized point of failure with a large amount of tokens
👎 1
10:05
This HIP has 2 goals IMO: a stable blockchain + a secure blockchain. Everything else is secondary to that (edited)
👍 4
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/17/2021 10:09 AM
They do, however I having everything on the cloud at some data centers is a bigger risk for centralization then an exchange who's goal is to get more trading activey so they make more fees. There insentive as an exchange is to keep the network as stable as possible to make people feel more confident in having the crypto. This I don't find that argument valid in that point. Pretty much everyone wants a stable blockchain, I don't know if anyone benefits from a unstable blockchain
10:15
Let's say exchanges hold 10 million of the tokens and 8 milion are staked. And the rest of the community stakes 20 million. I don't think there is going to be much of an issue as the number of validators are though the roof, and if there is a 20% of unstakes today would it make that big of a difference? The argument for ROI goes up and there is a equalibribum is the reason for it. You loose out on huge chucks of coins.
Avatar
@Tushar well put
Avatar
I’m still fond of burning DC to stake ... all or nothing work hard to get that HNT back (edited)
Avatar
i also like this idea
12:26
im guessing we are the only two people in the world who like it though
👍🏻 3
Avatar
You’re probably right
Avatar
i could be convinced. how would slashing work through? it's already burned
Avatar
If the elections are tuned correctly, the bad performers are kicked and less likely to be elected in the future. I don’t think slashing would be necessary because it already happened. I’d assume they’d try really hard to earn their investment back and then some
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
i could be convinced. how would slashing work through? it's already burned
You’re booted out and have to reburn a smaller amount?
Avatar
Only the die hards would try. Unfortunately not a good VaaS model I’d assume. So doing this is probably highly unlikely now because of those. A slashing penalty could be that you have to wait 1 day before being eligible to be re-elected to the group or burn more and skip that timer. (like all those mobile games now a days). I had also thought since you put all your chips in the beginning and you would be using DC it could be $10k worth of DC (1,000,000,000) instead. (edited)
Avatar
pharkmillups 03/17/2021 1:06 PM
Attn all staking providers. I added a list of you here. If this doesn't look right, DM me please and I'll get it fixed up. https://docs.helium.com/mine-hnt/validators/validator-faqs-resources/#staking-providers
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I personally want to optimize for people willing to give me a cell phone number they're willing to answer at 3am (edited)
jas_williams 03/17/2021 4:17 PM
That would take a special kind over stake 🙂
Avatar
it's gonna happen at some point
16:19
we definitely underbaked the social aspects of this a bit
Avatar
Avatar
evan
I personally want to optimize for people willing to give me a cell phone number they're willing to answer at 3am (edited)
maco2035 🐮 03/17/2021 6:32 PM
3 am est? Or PST? (edited)
Avatar
whatever your local time is
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 03/17/2021 6:38 PM
I can do that.
18:41
You can dm me on discord It works better
Avatar
When people talk about performance standards of validators, is the goal to insure that they meet some specific benchmarks, which may change over time as the network grows, or is it to maximize performance , with entirely adequate validators "losing out" to those which have more resources than are necessary for acceptable performance? (edited)
Avatar
the former
20:55
there will be some standard of adequacy, and it won't really be worth it to go over that
20:56
when we allow proxying for light gateways, the specs will likely rise some, but it will be something you can turn off if you just want to validate
Avatar
Avatar
evan
there will be some standard of adequacy, and it won't really be worth it to go over that
Thank you. Is "proxying for light gateways" expected to be a service provided by specific validators to specific light gateways, possibly for a percentage of the light gateways earnings? would proxying for light gateways be a function that only validators may perform?
Avatar
there is a lot there that is currently undecided
21:55
we have discussed a number of plans, and have not made any final decisions
21:57
i think that the best way to incentivize it is to share earnings. I personally like the idea that there would be a much lower staking level for proxying
Avatar
so, separate the functions entirely? have proxy devices require lower stake and perhaps lower hardware requirements than the validators?
22:01
would legacy hotspots be required to use (& share earnings with) a proxy
Avatar
the share, if it happens, will be quite small
22:02
we are not sure what is going to happen to the current hotspots
22:03
ideally, they become light gateways
22:03
why is that ideal
Avatar
because at some point of scale they simply won't be able to keep up anymore
22:04
getting gossip off the hotspots will save everyone a ton of bandwidth (edited)
Avatar
do you envision people setting up their own proxy servers, possibly private, using equipment at level of a good desktop computer? or would that be impractical?
Avatar
I don't honestly know
22:08
it's late, I should go. there will be plenty of warning as this comes together
Avatar
won't these questions need to be answered prior to setting criteria for validators ? if i understand correctly, these are nearly (within weeks of) Integration into production. Thank you for the chat . Goodnight!
Avatar
Avatar
GP
won't these questions need to be answered prior to setting criteria for validators ? if i understand correctly, these are nearly (within weeks of) Integration into production. Thank you for the chat . Goodnight!
at first validators will only take over the roll of consensus group otherwise they will just sit idle (when not in consensus) so no these phase 2, 3, 4 validator features dont need to be resolved before the switch
Avatar
Avatar
para1
at first validators will only take over the roll of consensus group otherwise they will just sit idle (when not in consensus) so no these phase 2, 3, 4 validator features dont need to be resolved before the switch
Thank you. That makes the pieces fit together better in my mind.🤔
Avatar
Throwing out an idea for an alternative to slashing/overstaking. Instead could a poor performing validator be locked/banned from participating in the consensus group for x amount of blocks(perhaps a week/month)? I would think this would accomplish the same goal as slashing and with the added benefit of removing that validator immediately. You would also have to lock out the owner from transferring the stake to another validator node. I was thinking about how slashing and overstaking would work and it seems like it will add so much complexity to the network, not to mention it would be difficult to convey all the little intricacies of how it would work to those participating as validators.
Avatar
Avatar
jcarl
Throwing out an idea for an alternative to slashing/overstaking. Instead could a poor performing validator be locked/banned from participating in the consensus group for x amount of blocks(perhaps a week/month)? I would think this would accomplish the same goal as slashing and with the added benefit of removing that validator immediately. You would also have to lock out the owner from transferring the stake to another validator node. I was thinking about how slashing and overstaking would work and it seems like it will add so much complexity to the network, not to mention it would be difficult to convey all the little intricacies of how it would work to those participating as validators.
jas_williams 03/18/2021 5:16 AM
theoretically that already happens the poorest performing validators get pushed out of the consensus group first. So a poor validator will only do one round. the issue that has become apparent is that the testnet is not as responsive to software changes as the development team in helium would like, some validators took days to update their software. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
jas_williams
theoretically that already happens the poorest performing validators get pushed out of the consensus group first. So a poor validator will only do one round. the issue that has become apparent is that the testnet is not as responsive to software changes as the development team in helium would like, some validators took days to update their software. (edited)
Sure, but with the current implementation there is nothing preventing that poorly performing validator from getting elected again. The proposal would be that once they are removed from the consensus group for performing poorly, they can't get back in until the penalty period has expired. Between slashing and what I am proposing, I think they both equally motivate a validator operator to fix their shit. Both result in losing HNT. I know if I got locked out of participating in the consensus group for a month I would be highly motivated to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Avatar
Avatar
jas_williams
theoretically that already happens the poorest performing validators get pushed out of the consensus group first. So a poor validator will only do one round. the issue that has become apparent is that the testnet is not as responsive to software changes as the development team in helium would like, some validators took days to update their software. (edited)
took days to update still haven't updated fixed it for you. 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
jcarl
Sure, but with the current implementation there is nothing preventing that poorly performing validator from getting elected again. The proposal would be that once they are removed from the consensus group for performing poorly, they can't get back in until the penalty period has expired. Between slashing and what I am proposing, I think they both equally motivate a validator operator to fix their shit. Both result in losing HNT. I know if I got locked out of participating in the consensus group for a month I would be highly motivated to make sure it doesn't happen again.
i think some upcoming work will record this behavior so that the system can make these kinds of decisions. right now it's difficult as the performance metrics are transient
Avatar
Avatar
jcarl
Sure, but with the current implementation there is nothing preventing that poorly performing validator from getting elected again. The proposal would be that once they are removed from the consensus group for performing poorly, they can't get back in until the penalty period has expired. Between slashing and what I am proposing, I think they both equally motivate a validator operator to fix their shit. Both result in losing HNT. I know if I got locked out of participating in the consensus group for a month I would be highly motivated to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Personally (not a great argument for the network, I know) I'd prefer losing out on CG vs actual slashing at first. Emotionally, humans overract to having an existing thing taken away vs missing out on a thing they didn't have yet. So it may achieve the same result while going over better with the validator operators. (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Also, this is all new enough that I don't think we're in a spot for a validator operator to be able to accurately debug "performing poorly". Enough that actually slashing stake seems like too big of a stick. What I mean is this: Let's assume I'm acting in good faith, I'm hosted on a VPS, I have reason to believe I have enough bandwdith and low latency to most places, including some other validators I spot checked. Systems stats tell me that in a CG I'm not maxing out my possible disk IO, RAM, or all vCPUs. If my validator is penalized by being a little behind in the hbbft protocol, and keeps getting kicked out after 1 or 2 rounds of CG what specifically do I look at to debug the problem? I'd do it if I knew where to start. Do I just move to AWS (or wherever I see the high earners are) ? That seems like the wrong incentive. To be clear, I'm not saying I expect that level of detail now. It's early days. But, in these early days, getting penalized by missing out on more rewards seems way easier to swallow than that plus actually slashing the stake is pretty harsh in a situation where I'm trying to be a good validator, but don't have enough info to debug it while getting slashed. Or, maybe slashing is only for well known "infractions" with well known fixes, lke not keeping software up to date. Dunno. Just kind of thinking out loud.
Avatar
the performance metrics aren't transient
12:42
they're all recorded on the chain forever
12:42
we're hoping that the measures we'll include in the restart today will allow us to move forward without needing slashing
👌 2
Avatar
Will this error go away? This is my 3rd test validator, but this is the first time i got this error. CORRECTION Never-mind. After a few more minutes everything corrected itself. I am now in consensus. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Clayw05
Will this error go away? This is my 3rd test validator, but this is the first time i got this error. CORRECTION Never-mind. After a few more minutes everything corrected itself. I am now in consensus. (edited)
jas_williams 03/18/2021 2:42 PM
please keep these questions in #testnet-ops
👍 1
Avatar
So I have a question about HIP-25, validators, and lone wolf hotspots. Didn't really know much about this but I've recently been hit up by others in the server offering to buy my hotspot because it's a lone wolf and they claim that when validators go live, lone wolf hotspots will stop receiving any benefits and be nothing more than an expensive paper weight. I've been sorting though the two months of this channel and I'm really confused. Is what I'm being told accurate?
Avatar
No
15:41
You will not earn from consensus anymore which is rare anyway.
15:42
There are tons of hotspots on order. Maybe you won't be lonely when they are delivered.
Avatar
Avatar
kwatkins99
There are tons of hotspots on order. Maybe you won't be lonely when they are delivered.
WyattHarrington 03/19/2021 3:50 PM
I will have 4 hotspots within 2km, is this still going to be viable or should I look at selling my units?
Avatar
Well @kwatkins99 the only problem I see now is it sounds like helium is trying to do away with nearly all the benefits we currently receive. All hotspots will be converted to light hotspots that wont construct challenges or participate in consensus groups. If they reduce the amount of hotspots that construct challenges to a fraction of what we currently have then in my mind it is likely that the average hotspot will be lucky to receive/witness even a few challenges a day and therefore receive nearly no benefits as we know them now. So the people's network becomes a handful of people's network.
Avatar
as the network grows the challenge construction rewards basically go to zero. there's no real loss there. same for consensus groups - you've got a 16 out of 100,000 (or whatever number) chance of ever hitting it, and that's if you just completely ignore the motivation section of the HIP which outlines all the reasons why continuing with the status quo is untenable. the network is not heading in this direction to be mean
Avatar
construction rewards don't go away immediately, but their days are numbered
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
as the network grows the challenge construction rewards basically go to zero. there's no real loss there. same for consensus groups - you've got a 16 out of 100,000 (or whatever number) chance of ever hitting it, and that's if you just completely ignore the motivation section of the HIP which outlines all the reasons why continuing with the status quo is untenable. the network is not heading in this direction to be mean
WyattHarrington 03/19/2021 6:04 PM
So in the end of the day will hotspots basically only when IOT devices actually come in contact with them? even with multiple hotspots around them?
Avatar
Avatar
WyattHarrington
So in the end of the day will hotspots basically only when IOT devices actually come in contact with them? even with multiple hotspots around them?
No
Avatar
Avatar
WyattHarrington
I will have 4 hotspots within 2km, is this still going to be viable or should I look at selling my units?
People are still scrambling to get units because it still will payoff. If you want to sell, look at how much they are going for on ebay. Why, because they are profitable and people are willing to pay a premium to get online and earning 2 months earlier than from a vendor.
Avatar
Avatar
WyattHarrington
So in the end of the day will hotspots basically only when IOT devices actually come in contact with them? even with multiple hotspots around them?
If you want to sell your hotspot DM me.
Avatar
Anyone have any advice on the best ways/places to buy 10,000 HNT for staking a validator? I see that Binance US only allows a maximum deposit of $5,000 via ACH, for example, and they also charge a 10 bps fee
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/20/2021 2:38 PM
Sorry we can't talk price or exchanges here as per #rules
Avatar
Oh ok
Avatar
Avatar
kwatkins99
People are still scrambling to get units because it still will payoff. If you want to sell, look at how much they are going for on ebay. Why, because they are profitable and people are willing to pay a premium to get online and earning 2 months earlier than from a vendor.
Been looking at my area, Not willing to take a chance buying this on EBay.
Avatar
Avatar
evan
construction rewards don't go away immediately, but their days are numbered
will what's left of the construction rewards be added to the 6% going to validators?
Avatar
Avatar
GP
will what's left of the construction rewards be added to the 6% going to validators?
Would like to know this as well
Avatar
we don't have a proposal yet
19:47
it's almost nothing, though
Avatar
How much is it % wise?
Avatar
Avatar
yahav
How much is it % wise?
~2.07% of HNT minted goes to challenge creation (challengERs)
Avatar
So it would increase validation by ~33%? Not a bad extra bucket for validator nodes.
05:27
Whatever doesn’t slow down launch tho imo
05:41
thoughts?
Avatar
I agree with it. If you don't have enough you can always pool.
07:29
I feel that if you have more skin in the game to run a Validator you are less likely to let it go by the wayside and not keep up with the patching which is what they are seeing now.
Avatar
Hadn't thought of this until recently - with the switch to validators, does that mean the hotspots themselves will use less data over the course of the month?
Avatar
Avatar
jsteelel
Hadn't thought of this until recently - with the switch to validators, does that mean the hotspots themselves will use less data over the course of the month?
eventually, yes. the first iteration of validators will only move consensus group behavior away from hotspots. but eventually all chain/sync functions will be moved to validators and hotspots will use tens/hundreds of mb per month
trescommas 1
Avatar
Very cool. Thanks
Avatar
that's the "light hotspots" phase that we describe in the roadmap and recently mentioned in #announcements. it will also mean that hotspots can be a lot less powerful from a hardware pov (cpu, ram, etc) as they don't have to do very much. most lora gateways on the market are extremely simple/cheap processors with minimal ram and storage. those would be viable
Avatar
So mobile data plans for remote hotspots would require smaller data plans (or use less data), right?
Avatar
right
08:22
it will be the same as what any existing lora gateway uses, + a few more for various poc transactions and things like that
Avatar
sgrutman978 03/22/2021 8:24 AM
Any other options besides patrium?
Avatar
Avatar
sgrutman978
Any other options besides patrium?
see the "vendors-staking" group of channels on the left
Avatar
Avatar
sgrutman978
thoughts?
there will be well over 100 at launch with the current 10k proposed amount
Avatar
deasydoesit 03/22/2021 9:57 AM
You can’t just automatically do it without additional configuration (edited)
Avatar
Original message was deleted or could not be loaded.
Because as of now, running a validator is just an application on a Unix-ish box (or in Docker) that the validator-owner controls. Auto-updating software on Unix is not a 'one-size-fits-all' situation.
Avatar
Avatar
krby
Because as of now, running a validator is just an application on a Unix-ish box (or in Docker) that the validator-owner controls. Auto-updating software on Unix is not a 'one-size-fits-all' situation.
What I said 😂
😋 1
Avatar
Avatar
deasydoesit
You can’t just automatically do it without additional configuration (edited)
I don't know. Watchtower is pretty easy to install. 😄 https://github.com/containrrr/watchtower#quick-start Even with those defaults you'll still be better off than most, auto-updating every 24 hours. But maybe you'd want to update more frequently just in case. (edited)
A process for automating Docker container base image updates. - containrrr/watchtower
Avatar
Avatar
linagee
I don't know. Watchtower is pretty easy to install. 😄 https://github.com/containrrr/watchtower#quick-start Even with those defaults you'll still be better off than most, auto-updating every 24 hours. But maybe you'd want to update more frequently just in case. (edited)
deasydoesit 03/23/2021 7:14 AM
“Additional configuration”
07:21
But you’re right, there are a lot of really simple solutions, such as Watchtower, that can be implemented. And Watchtower specifically is described in detail in the documentation, so adding the additional configuration should be a breeze.
Avatar
For so running a validator node what’s the return look like when will test net go live
Avatar
Avatar
jan123
For so running a validator node what’s the return look like when will test net go live
Check the pinned messages. There are a few estimates folks have done posted there.
Avatar
How do I see pending transactions on the testnet. I want to look up using my staking hash.
Avatar
Avatar
dellisny
How do I see pending transactions on the testnet. I want to look up using my staking hash.
Check out #testnet-ops for lost more details on the actual test net. you are looking for: https://testnet-api.helium.wtf/v1/pending_transactions/<transaction%20hash>
Avatar
Hey guys quick question! how do you guys know if watchtower successfully updates?
Avatar
Avatar
Potato
Hey guys quick question! how do you guys know if watchtower successfully updates?
$ docker exec validator miner versions
Avatar
LegallyBond 03/23/2021 7:52 PM
The model on Validator rewards and APY is interesting with current demand. Highest APY at the start and with good price support but high USD value will lead to lower aggregate APY because of demand, which will lower APY. In a bear market/winter there will be less inclination for locking up HNT to earn yield, which will reduce the total Validators locked, but also make it lower USD value to participate. I think that creates a good balance for stability of consensus for wide amount of groups which is ideal long term. I'm not liking the overstaking though. I think 10k per Validator should be a fixed number. More servers, more effort, more dedication to stability (edited)
19:55
Cooldown period with no yield is very good. Observing masternode economics in a few prominent projects closely where hundreds of masternodes were spun down and liquidity taken abruptly Feb '18 directly impacted entire project ecosystems even on a very active community led project. That's the tokenomic thought.
20:00
For HNT specifically, I would encourage thought about the "stake" of the stakers, because while fixed 10k stake per server means more servers, that effort begets more attention and especially for pools and VaaS providers. Consensus is too important, which is why HIP25 exists. Overstaking is a convenience, and pools risk per server instead of spreading. Look at the Meerkat opportunity when Oracles were less vigilant in reporting. That was an arb effect, but not a network integrity example
Avatar
“10k per validator should be fixed” - as in, it’s broken and should be corrected? Or it should be set in stone
Avatar
LegallyBond 03/23/2021 8:03 PM
Set in stone
20:04
Poor wording on my part. And the number itself 10k, 1k, 100k, I believe is less relevant than having it per Validator.
Avatar
Very much agree with your 2018 observations
Avatar
LegallyBond 03/23/2021 8:06 PM
I think overstaking invites weaker Validators. Sure, you can script and spin up more servers and be better automated, just like an Oracle can automate price. The better ones will do so. And they are stronger for the network
20:08
With abundant pools as well, there is strength needed even more so for pooling since they offer staking to the masses as a service and are compensated for such. So they especially should have as many strong servers and vigilance to ensure maximum integrity for consensus across the crowds who will participate
Avatar
@krby where are the pinned messages
Avatar
In the top right corner of the screen, to the left of the search box, there's a pin icon. If you click it you can see pinned messages. On mobile you tap the name of the channel and it will reveal an option to view pins.
Avatar
Top right of this image. The "pin" icon.
Avatar
on mobile, swipe left and you'll see the pin icon
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
“10k per validator should be fixed” - as in, it’s broken and should be corrected? Or it should be set in stone
maco2035 🐮 03/25/2021 10:46 AM
Nah, overstaking should be allowed.
Avatar
Solid Logic 03/25/2021 3:26 PM
what is construction rewards?
Avatar
Avatar
Solid Logic
what is construction rewards?
Related to hip-25? I don't know what that means. But in general a hotspot is rewarded a little bit for constructing PoC challenges and sending them over the Internet to other hotspots.
Avatar
has anybody said peoples network lately ?
Avatar
Avatar
Boxxy
has anybody said peoples network lately ?
clever. no one's made that comment before
Troll 1
Avatar
<humor> I think moving this CG to Validators is taking money from my pocket. Think of my chldren! This is their future! I insist that Helium is required to provide me with 10TNT (specifically from testnest v4, those are the best ones) for every 1HNT I have lost as a result of my hotspots not being able to participate in CGs anymore. </humor> (edited)
Avatar
As far as making the network as reliable as possible, and decentralized, would it make much sense to use a masternode network to some degree using something like PACGlobal?
👍 1
00:40
We could still have our own validators, but just use them as a buffer
00:40
They have 16,000 masternodes, and could surely handle the load
👀 1
Avatar
I don't think that this would be very easy to do
Avatar
is this still 10k?
Avatar
Continues to be 10k HNT
👍 1
Avatar
25k hnt or bust
😬 1
14:00
(kidding)
Avatar
perfectmoney 03/27/2021 3:52 PM
I signed up for the "Register Your Interest" form. Is there any other way to get started. We would be running two nodes. We are not representing a staking pool. Just our own tokens.
Avatar
Question... So when validation moves to cloud and light miners arrive, we'll non-light miners still validate, or will that be defunct as a function of the hardware?
Avatar
Avatar
dan
Question... So when validation moves to cloud and light miners arrive, we'll non-light miners still validate, or will that be defunct as a function of the hardware?
That would be up to each vendor. They could still use the “miner” code we have today
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
That would be up to each vendor. They could still use the “miner” code we have today
The question arises because of long term investment in many heavy miners now, when light miners are coming that may be quarter the price.
Avatar
There would be no economic benefit to validating transactions. Purely a technical implementation decision by the vendor. Our hotspots will become light hotspots. The only other opinion I can add is that people tend to regret waiting when it comes to hotspots
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
There would be no economic benefit to validating transactions. Purely a technical implementation decision by the vendor. Our hotspots will become light hotspots. The only other opinion I can add is that people tend to regret waiting when it comes to hotspots
It's not about regret, but understanding and then forming strategy.
Avatar
There is no precise timeline for full light hotspot deployment. I’d hope it’s Q3/4 this year. Hope that helps with your decision making
Avatar
I guess a question is, would a validator minor today not validate in a year's time (when lights come)
Avatar
Why would it matter?
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Why would it matter?
The outlay on a very large number, vs time for light hotspots to come.
Avatar
I understand that, but it would make no difference if the hotspots you buy today stay “heavy” or become light. There is no difference in rewards. Heavy hotspots are not validators and almost certainly can’t be validators due to their low power hardware
10:40
Thanks @capcom
Avatar
Yup np. In general you’d prefer your hotspots to be light as they use less bandwidth and will have less problems (no p2p issues, no chain syncing, etc). I can’t see any benefit to having a heavy hotspot once lights are deployed, but all heavies can become lights
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Yup np. In general you’d prefer your hotspots to be light as they use less bandwidth and will have less problems (no p2p issues, no chain syncing, etc). I can’t see any benefit to having a heavy hotspot once lights are deployed, but all heavies can become lights
Will it be easy for non-tech savy people to convert heavy hotspots to light ones? Hopefully much easier than converting heavy people to light people. Speaking for myself. ☺
Avatar
Yes it will be a firmware update and you won’t even notice
❤️ 2
💚 1
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Yes it will be a firmware update and you won’t even notice
Thank you!
Avatar
how much data a month will the light hotspot use
Avatar
Light gateways will still have PoC activity, any way to easily measure that network traffic? I think firmware updates would also be a data element, but we are talking much smaller usage compared to block sync and validation chatter.
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Yup np. In general you’d prefer your hotspots to be light as they use less bandwidth and will have less problems (no p2p issues, no chain syncing, etc). I can’t see any benefit to having a heavy hotspot once lights are deployed, but all heavies can become lights
Overlooking the loss of utility caused by reduction of cpu usage! If OG functions as a light gateway, it will be utterly useless for keeping coffee cup warm!
🤯 1
Avatar
Avatar
Phergive
how much data a month will the light hotspot use
probably much, much less (edited)
Avatar
sgrutman978 03/28/2021 9:26 PM
Is there any legal protection when using patrium? Like, idk. I feel kinda iffy sending thousands of dollars to a random wallet
21:27
Also when is the mainnet estimated launch?
Avatar
Soon, but because it's R&D (something new is being built for the first time), it's not possible to accurately predict when. Only estimate.
Avatar
Avatar
sgrutman978
Is there any legal protection when using patrium? Like, idk. I feel kinda iffy sending thousands of dollars to a random wallet
deasydoesit 03/29/2021 6:42 AM
You can speak with @Ross directly and he can address any concerns you may have
Avatar
Avatar
sgrutman978
Is there any legal protection when using patrium? Like, idk. I feel kinda iffy sending thousands of dollars to a random wallet
We have terms of service in place. Let's chat. I'm back now, but I think you're on vacation this time?
Avatar
Also -> #deleted-channel
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
Ross
We have terms of service in place. Let's chat. I'm back now, but I think you're on vacation this time?
While I trust that you are honest, it sure might be reassuring if someone set a precedent of pool operators being bonded against malfeasance. As newcomers enter the field, I suspect that eventually someone will put up a nice professional website, offer attractive terms, and then either skip off with a large haul of HNT or inadvertently commit a blunder which otherwise makes it possible for the HNT to disappear.
09:20
I don't know how or if such- requirement could be folded into HIP25 (edited)
Avatar
could you please take to #deleted-channel? the amount of OT going on recently is getting out of hand
09:20
how individual service providers handle their terms is not related to HIP25
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
could you please take to #deleted-channel? the amount of OT going on recently is getting out of hand
I expect that you meant to suggest #helium-rising . I didn't post there, because the matter is not specific to Ross' pool, but to the services that are arising directly from the HIP25 initiative. Which non-vendor-specific channel would be the most appropriate for raising this concern? (edited)
Avatar
the validator process is completely trustless. there is not going to be any on-chain mechanism for verifying whether a thing is a scam or not. so i have no idea?
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
the validator process is completely trustless. there is not going to be any on-chain mechanism for verifying whether a thing is a scam or not. so i have no idea?
I don't disagree. I just think that it may be a concern worthy of discussion. Perhaps others will have thoughts. I'll drop the topic for now. If it no-one else picks it up, I'll accept that it is not worth pursuing.
Avatar
in general i think participants in decentralized networks are going to have to get comfortable with doing their own diligence and making their own decisions. HIP19 is in a gray area because there is a vendor approval process, so that process should at least be decent enough to catch obvious problems. but with HIP25 there is no approval, and no permission. and nor should there be. if there's even a shred of doubt about a vendor or service, you should just not use it
Avatar
I agree. I wasn't suggesting a mechanism in a HIP, but rather that it might be good precedent for the early & legitimate pools to voluntarily adopt. Fly-by-night scams that come along later might then be easier to spot by potential clients being diligent. 'nuff said. Have a great day.Work calls!!
Avatar
Avatar
GP
I agree. I wasn't suggesting a mechanism in a HIP, but rather that it might be good precedent for the early & legitimate pools to voluntarily adopt. Fly-by-night scams that come along later might then be easier to spot by potential clients being diligent. 'nuff said. Have a great day.Work calls!!
one thing is for sure, scams will come...
Avatar
It might be worth beefing up the warnings/notices regarding vendors - maybe in #rules or channel subjects for vendors. As the Official Helium Community, having dedicated channels for vendors may convey some sort of endorsement or support from Helium that is not intended.
☝️ 2
🙌 1
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
It might be worth beefing up the warnings/notices regarding vendors - maybe in #rules or channel subjects for vendors. As the Official Helium Community, having dedicated channels for vendors may convey some sort of endorsement or support from Helium that is not intended.
electric_dornishman 03/29/2021 11:29 AM
Couldn't agree more with this - Diligincing these entities is extremely difficult given that they have done no prior work (specifically the staking services). I take some level of comfort with the fact they have their own channels. I had assumed that it meant they had been in contact with the Helium team.
Avatar
Avatar
electric_dornishman
Couldn't agree more with this - Diligincing these entities is extremely difficult given that they have done no prior work (specifically the staking services). I take some level of comfort with the fact they have their own channels. I had assumed that it meant they had been in contact with the Helium team.
yea definitely not the case. maybe we can add something to the intro message @cokes? "Vendors are not endorsed by Helium Inc. Do your own research before buying any products or sending your HNT to any of these services" ?
Avatar
Happy to
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
yea definitely not the case. maybe we can add something to the intro message @cokes? "Vendors are not endorsed by Helium Inc. Do your own research before buying any products or sending your HNT to any of these services" ?
Ultimately may be safest to leave support rooms for vendors to the "unofficial" servers.
13:31
how can i find more information about this ?
13:31
so I heard consensus is coing away
13:31
and there will be validator nodes hosted by people who have more than 10000 hnt
13:32
how will the system work ?
Avatar
in the pins up top
13:32
there is extensive documentation
Avatar
one question
13:33
will there be services to put HNT coins together so that more people can host a node ?
13:33
will that be allowed?
Avatar
also answered
Avatar
ok i will read there 😄
Avatar
see the vendors-staking section
Avatar
once this goes main net (live), do you think validators will flood the network
22:01
just curious, seems we're earning around 3,000 tokens at 100 validators , its a lot to stake so trying to understand ROI for stake
22:02
3000 per month
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
in general i think participants in decentralized networks are going to have to get comfortable with doing their own diligence and making their own decisions. HIP19 is in a gray area because there is a vendor approval process, so that process should at least be decent enough to catch obvious problems. but with HIP25 there is no approval, and no permission. and nor should there be. if there's even a shred of doubt about a vendor or service, you should just not use it
I think this is technically right. However, Helium unlike other blockchains has made mining incredibly user-friendly and accesible. So now you have a large number of very active community-driven folks with large long-holding mined HNT positions that are non technical and see the economic opportunity of staking and are looking for ways to do it - and frankly will feel "left out" otherwise. Until the point that someone like (say) coinbase supports HNT and makes staking as easy as (say) depositing into a CD in a bank, the natural market forces will drive a whole bunch of folks towards whatever way they can find to do staking. So it might be beneficial for Helium, Inc / DWA to think how to help those folks in figuring all of that out. I completely agree that shouldn't translate to a certification process of vendors (like for hotspots) as the dynamic is quite different, but not sure that the "wild west" will be the best answer either. I feel like there are things Helium Inc. could do to minimize the risk of bad things happening / bad PR, while helping folks along they way. Happy to participate in suggesting/discussing options if useful.
👍 4
Avatar
Avatar
posinaga
I think this is technically right. However, Helium unlike other blockchains has made mining incredibly user-friendly and accesible. So now you have a large number of very active community-driven folks with large long-holding mined HNT positions that are non technical and see the economic opportunity of staking and are looking for ways to do it - and frankly will feel "left out" otherwise. Until the point that someone like (say) coinbase supports HNT and makes staking as easy as (say) depositing into a CD in a bank, the natural market forces will drive a whole bunch of folks towards whatever way they can find to do staking. So it might be beneficial for Helium, Inc / DWA to think how to help those folks in figuring all of that out. I completely agree that shouldn't translate to a certification process of vendors (like for hotspots) as the dynamic is quite different, but not sure that the "wild west" will be the best answer either. I feel like there are things Helium Inc. could do to minimize the risk of bad things happening / bad PR, while helping folks along they way. Happy to participate in suggesting/discussing options if useful.
Thanks for this, that’s well articulated. Would love to hear some suggestions on what we could do here given the various dynamics
Avatar
What's your biggest concern @posinaga? It seems like a solution of paying a staking service to run a validator for these types of users may be a good solution. With this option they would keep control of their tokens since I assume your point is there are large holders of HNT who are not technically sophisticated enough to run their own validator. I believe if that service wasn't doing a good job you could transfer your stake without penalty. (These seem like relatively simple transactions, but maybe could be built into the app?) OR is this more from the standpoint of figuring out an easier way for small holders of HNT to stake safely? (which is a different can of worms)
Avatar
What is the expected returns for holding 1 validator?
11:25
How could I test running a validator without staking yet. Don't have 10k hnt
11:25
I have CS experience, just not quite sure as I dont see any documentation yet
11:27
Different question: will hip-25 reduce the hnt rewards for hotspot hosts?
Avatar
Avatar
jamesh
What is the expected returns for holding 1 validator?
see the pins, as you can imagine this has been asked many times
Avatar
Avatar
jamesh
How could I test running a validator without staking yet. Don't have 10k hnt
Avatar
@Dave T thanks boss
Avatar
how many validator nodes are running right now ?
Avatar
better question for #testnet-ops
Avatar
Is there a limit on number of validators when mainnet goes live?
Avatar
no
Avatar
Avatar
evan
better question for #testnet-ops
You can check validator stats @ https://explorer.helium.wtf/validators
The current and most recent hotspots that have been elected to be part of a consensus group
09:03
My initial estimates are showing around 100-200 showing interest in the testnet, which means at launch we could expect at least 100 validator nodes, This equates to around 3000 hnt per month ROI. Assuming this rate stayed consistent say 3 months, folks would have enough coin to sake another validator. So after 3 month, we could double validators to 200. And then from there its potentially exponential so by 6 month period we should have 400 validator. And by month 9, we would have 800 validator, and by month 12 a year from now 1600 validators. Assuming everyone just continuously re-stakes. Is this the right way to think about the growth?
Avatar
Really? Do you think 3000 HNT/mo won't attract hundreds of new validators immediately?
Avatar
Avatar
blueice89
My initial estimates are showing around 100-200 showing interest in the testnet, which means at launch we could expect at least 100 validator nodes, This equates to around 3000 hnt per month ROI. Assuming this rate stayed consistent say 3 months, folks would have enough coin to sake another validator. So after 3 month, we could double validators to 200. And then from there its potentially exponential so by 6 month period we should have 400 validator. And by month 9, we would have 800 validator, and by month 12 a year from now 1600 validators. Assuming everyone just continuously re-stakes. Is this the right way to think about the growth?
there is gonna be closer to 1000 validators on launch...
Avatar
Agreed
Avatar
100-200 being active when rewards are 0 means getting 10x that when there is an actual financial benefit seems reasonable
09:16
I bet almost immediately it grows to where APR is low but still worth the effort (like 10-25% maybe?) (edited)
09:22
that's our guess
Avatar
i suspect there will be at least a few hundred at the start
09:48
im surprised today. i was ready for the onslaught of it's $130,000 to stake a validator so much for the peoples network!!111!!!
🙄 1
😂 3
Avatar
you know my thoughts on that slogan... why I'm not in marketing (and this server is the closest to customer facing I've been and probably ever will be... in general not a fan of "the people"... they tend to be pretty stupid and annoying)
😆 3
👏 2
hotspotty 1
Avatar
spoken like a true engineer
💯 2
Avatar
you think 1000 at launch, I mean do 1000 people exist that have 10,000 HNT? The test net is only showing around 200 validators, now its possible there could be more but there are some tech challenges to work through I would imagine it takes time people to go online, i am in the test net currently sweet cedar sea horse, I mean how many folks do you know with 10,000 HNT ready to go
Avatar
Avatar
posinaga
I think this is technically right. However, Helium unlike other blockchains has made mining incredibly user-friendly and accesible. So now you have a large number of very active community-driven folks with large long-holding mined HNT positions that are non technical and see the economic opportunity of staking and are looking for ways to do it - and frankly will feel "left out" otherwise. Until the point that someone like (say) coinbase supports HNT and makes staking as easy as (say) depositing into a CD in a bank, the natural market forces will drive a whole bunch of folks towards whatever way they can find to do staking. So it might be beneficial for Helium, Inc / DWA to think how to help those folks in figuring all of that out. I completely agree that shouldn't translate to a certification process of vendors (like for hotspots) as the dynamic is quite different, but not sure that the "wild west" will be the best answer either. I feel like there are things Helium Inc. could do to minimize the risk of bad things happening / bad PR, while helping folks along they way. Happy to participate in suggesting/discussing options if useful.
I am technicaly saavy but do not have HNT tokens, I would think maybe the people that want to be involved vs the people that can stake should partner, I am doing with a friend for 50/50 returns , if you want to sign up for something similar let me know
Avatar
Avatar
blueice89
you think 1000 at launch, I mean do 1000 people exist that have 10,000 HNT? The test net is only showing around 200 validators, now its possible there could be more but there are some tech challenges to work through I would imagine it takes time people to go online, i am in the test net currently sweet cedar sea horse, I mean how many folks do you know with 10,000 HNT ready to go
1000 for sure, also there are already multiple staking pools setup so people with less than 10k HNT can pool their balances and stake...
13:14
Also someone may play around with 2-3 validators in testnet and then its just "clone instance x 100" once validating goes live... its kinda the whole point of what clouds offer, near instantaneous scaling
Avatar
Yeah I for sure have seen the pooling services, but I mean unless they are ponying up all the CPU money, it feels like the pools would get drowned out quickly, I am paying around 65$/month for my AWS instance
13:15
but how they going to scale , 100 times (10,000 HNT)
Avatar
Avatar
blueice89
Yeah I for sure have seen the pooling services, but I mean unless they are ponying up all the CPU money, it feels like the pools would get drowned out quickly, I am paying around 65$/month for my AWS instance
long gap to be drowned out. if the APY for validtors are "only" 5% tahts still ~$6,500/year... even with a pooling markup and cut there is a long way to go to get to server costs
13:16
and 5% is with like 8,000 validators or something
Avatar
5% is on the 10,000 hnt so that would be like 50 HNT , 50 hnt is now around less than 1000$/year
Avatar
500 HNT...
13:19
500 * $12.8 (current oracle) = $6,400 I can math!
Avatar
sorry yes
Avatar
so yea my main point is you would need like 10,000 validators to get to the point where server costs are significant, and those staking pools that take a cut of earnings will survive too, if earnigns go down, the cut goes down but there is still profit, so yea 1,000 validtors by like day 5 sounds like a good over/under
Avatar
then does the vlidator count flatten until people earn return
13:23
does anyone know how fast validator account grew on ethereum?
Avatar
Avatar
blueice89
you think 1000 at launch, I mean do 1000 people exist that have 10,000 HNT? The test net is only showing around 200 validators, now its possible there could be more but there are some tech challenges to work through I would imagine it takes time people to go online, i am in the test net currently sweet cedar sea horse, I mean how many folks do you know with 10,000 HNT ready to go
There’s many...
13:24
Binance has something like 14 million HNT in customer accounts, to give you a sense of it
Avatar
Avatar
para1
so yea my main point is you would need like 10,000 validators to get to the point where server costs are significant, and those staking pools that take a cut of earnings will survive too, if earnigns go down, the cut goes down but there is still profit, so yea 1,000 validtors by like day 5 sounds like a good over/under
maco2035 🐮 04/02/2021 1:26 PM
But like you can only have a max of 7k today. And from what I see, and if helium is not running tons of the validators (like 10-20 not 100's) then there will only be like 700 tops imo at the start.
Avatar
We are at most running a handful just to observe performance etc
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/02/2021 1:27 PM
There is alot of people with a hotspot with like not wanting to stake
13:27
So there will be less validtors.
Avatar
Avatar
maco2035 🐮
But like you can only have a max of 7k today. And from what I see, and if helium is not running tons of the validators (like 10-20 not 100's) then there will only be like 700 tops imo at the start.
? whats this max of 7k? and 700 is pretty close to 1,000
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/02/2021 1:27 PM
I mean 70 million hnt
13:27
So like how many times can you divited 70million by 10k
13:27
You get a max of 7k
13:28
You follow my numbers?
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/02/2021 1:28 PM
Yeah
Avatar
if that number is correct 70M HNT in circulation then current max validator would be 7k
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/02/2021 1:28 PM
I think of that 15% are heliums tokens.
Avatar
700 would be great. That’s more than most pos network
Avatar
assume 1% of poulaton
Avatar
Avatar
maco2035 🐮
I think of that 15% are heliums tokens.
We have about 5%, check the rich list
Avatar
well HST holders
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/02/2021 1:28 PM
I mean it is harder
13:28
Yeah hst
13:29
Some of them I see are selling tokens
13:29
So
13:29
It isn't easy to track who is who with just address currently
Avatar
I’m sure some investors will stake
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/02/2021 1:29 PM
Some will
13:29
Some won't
Avatar
Very insightful
Troll 2
Avatar
I wonder if people from other tokens will flock here
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/02/2021 1:29 PM
But I am assumming that 50% of them will
Avatar
cash out ETH and come to HNT stake
Avatar
500+ would be great at the start
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/02/2021 1:30 PM
Yes it would be
13:30
But there is ton of lockup from the exhcanges.
13:30
Like tons
Avatar
I’m sure it will get there based on who I know is planning on staking (edited)
Avatar
in theory we should get diluted as all hell cause your best current Stake rates are like 5%
13:30
so market needs to bottom out the demand supply
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/02/2021 1:31 PM
That is about 19 million tokens are on binance.
13:31
So
13:32
I really only think about 1 million will funnel back to a validator node there
Avatar
I bet a good chunk of the binance balance flows back out why have it just sit there when it could be earning interest?
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/02/2021 1:34 PM
@para1 2 things 5 month cooldown
13:34
And you need trust somone to run it
Avatar
but yea we will see
Avatar
It’s just random guesswork on these numbers, it doesn’t matter until it launches
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/02/2021 1:34 PM
And most poeple on binnace either are holding in everything in the market.
13:34
Or just waiting to sell
13:35
My hope is that there is a lower barrier to entry in terms of cooldown.
13:35
It will only add to number of validtor nodes.
Avatar
SillyFace (Muse) 04/03/2021 5:28 AM
which of the staking vendors is the best?
Avatar
Avatar
SillyFace (Muse)
which of the staking vendors is the best?
I think it’s just depends on what you are looking for. Do you want a non-custodial or custodial staking provider? Are you looking to stake for the full 10k hnt or a smaller amount? How active do you want to be in managing the validator? I’m not sure the Helium is going to directly endorse one provider over the other so answering those questions might help you narrow it down.
👍🏿 1
Avatar
SillyFace (Muse) 04/03/2021 9:57 AM
@wizkid2020 thanks. Yes the full 10k for my own node. I don’t want to give up custody of my tokens and I’d like for them to manage it.
Avatar
Understood. I don’t think there are any non-custodial solutions where you don’t have to manage the node in some capacity. I heard some of the providers are working on a solution that would allow that but it may come far after the release. I would reach out to ask since we are talking 160k (USD).
Avatar
Avatar
SillyFace (Muse)
@wizkid2020 thanks. Yes the full 10k for my own node. I don’t want to give up custody of my tokens and I’d like for them to manage it.
this is exactly what hntvalidators.com provides
Avatar
Avatar
posinaga
this is exactly what hntvalidators.com provides
How does it work? I couldn’t find the details on the site.
17:37
I’ll ask in the other chats lol.
Avatar
Avatar
wizkid2020
How does it work? I couldn’t find the details on the site.
Yes. This may be a bit offtopic for this channel. Happy to explain via DM
Avatar
Avatar
posinaga
Yes. This may be a bit offtopic for this channel. Happy to explain via DM
or you could talk in #hntvalidators-dot-com
Avatar
Under current tentative/proposed plans, will it be possible to transfer staked HNT between wallets, retaining the staked status?
🙃 1
Avatar
From what I can tell, you can transfer a stake to a new validator address and a new wallet. I do not think you can transfer to a new wallet without also transferring to a new validator . So the process would be: - Spin up Validator A - Wallet 1 stakes Validator A - Spin up Validator B - Wallet 1 transfers stake to Wallet 2 and Validator B - Shut down Validator A
💯 1
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
GP
Under current tentative/proposed plans, will it be possible to transfer staked HNT between wallets, retaining the staked status?
what kirby said
16:13
there is an optional atomic hnt swap
Avatar
Avatar
wizkid2020
Understood. I don’t think there are any non-custodial solutions where you don’t have to manage the node in some capacity. I heard some of the providers are working on a solution that would allow that but it may come far after the release. I would reach out to ask since we are talking 160k (USD).
Argon does this already on Testnet
Avatar
Avatar
krby
From what I can tell, you can transfer a stake to a new validator address and a new wallet. I do not think you can transfer to a new wallet without also transferring to a new validator . So the process would be: - Spin up Validator A - Wallet 1 stakes Validator A - Spin up Validator B - Wallet 1 transfers stake to Wallet 2 and Validator B - Shut down Validator A
simonfuture2 04/07/2021 5:12 AM
That’s a very helpful message. Should be copied and saved for later .
Avatar
Out of curiosity any discussion about having a target wallet for distributions that differs from the staked wallet? I can see how requiring payouts to the same wallet would get messy especially for VaaS services.
Avatar
that's what hip 24 is mostly about
Avatar
alwaysbeplacing 04/08/2021 9:18 PM
How many hnt will be available for validators in august? And how many validators are estimated?
21:19
Trying to do the math in an approximate amount of hnt earned by a validator in august after halving occurs.
📌 1
Avatar
I don't think anyone really knows the answer to that, it's just guessing
Avatar
Avatar
alwaysbeplacing
How many hnt will be available for validators in august? And how many validators are estimated?
2.5 million x 6% = 150,000 HNT. Nobody knows how many validators will spin up in the short term.
Avatar
Avatar
alwaysbeplacing
How many hnt will be available for validators in august? And how many validators are estimated?
See the pinned messages, one of the links to some other estimations community members have done. This would let you put in your own and see the results including the halvenings and count operational costs. (edited)
Avatar
HI Guys, I understand we need 10k to become a validator(i'm, assuming on the mainnet) , but do we also need 10k HNT's to run the testnet? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Podi_23
HI Guys, I understand we need 10k to become a validator(i'm, assuming on the mainnet) , but do we also need 10k HNT's to run the testnet? (edited)
Nope! Anyone can participate in testnet. See https://docs.helium.com/mine-hnt/validators/
Avatar
Avatar
Zonaxx
Nope! Anyone can participate in testnet. See https://docs.helium.com/mine-hnt/validators/
Ahh great thanks!
Avatar
Hi, when will the validator mainnet will be live? Approximate month
Avatar
I’d bet on may
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
I’d bet on may
You've learned by painful experience what comes of optimistic predictions (which seem realistic at the time). My hunch is that at this point we can assume that any predictions of dates that you make will be conservative. I hope that I am right. 🤞 (edited)
Avatar
I do like to gamble
😆 5
Avatar
Bonjour.peut ton valider un hotspot diy ?
Avatar
Hi all. Just looking to get involved in running a node and finding the minimum of 10,000HNT. Why is it so high? I saw on the HIP that there was discussion that it was too low even.
Avatar
devan.sohni 04/10/2021 3:31 PM
To get this right to be validator you need to have 1. atleast 10K HNT mined 2. Need to bank it for at least 5 months. Any other requirement
Avatar
Avatar
devan.sohni
To get this right to be validator you need to have 1. atleast 10K HNT mined 2. Need to bank it for at least 5 months. Any other requirement
while one needs 10K HNT to operate validator instances, there are pools that one can join in, without such a relatively high investment, which will distribute earnings proportionate to to each member's stake. These pools, if sizeable, might ease one's exposure to the cool down period by using hnt incoming to the pool to pay out to outgoing members. Specific details on how this works, or even if it is offered will vary by pool.
Avatar
Avatar
devan.sohni
To get this right to be validator you need to have 1. atleast 10K HNT mined 2. Need to bank it for at least 5 months. Any other requirement
You need 10k hnt. It doesn't matter if you mined it or bought it. You need to setup and run the validator software somewhere reliable. Like a cloud service. The 5mo is a cooldown period. You can install our stake at ANY time (like one day after starting) but you will not have access to those coins until about 5mo AFTER the time you unstake.
Avatar
devan.sohni 04/10/2021 8:56 PM
Is there limit on # of validators we have. If yes whats the number. Currently how many Validators we have
Avatar
no limit
23:23
currently 254 active and 374 staked
Avatar
most are the offline staked will not come back
Avatar
Ok a month. Now I see
Avatar
how long does it ususally take until the started validator appears in the testnet-api.helium.wtf list?
Avatar
Avatar
meltrox
how long does it ususally take until the started validator appears in the testnet-api.helium.wtf list?
typically within an hour, usually about 10-20min
07:59
In generally, techincal questions about running the validator software and monitoring it should do in the #testnet-ops channel, questions overall about staking, cooldown, and features of HIP-25, should go here.
Avatar
@krby Test Cases Perform the following test cases to help with testing: Set up a wallet Set up a validator node Stake testnet network tokens (TNT) Observe wallet receives rewards* Unstake TNT, observe: no longer in consensus group no longer receiving rewards Take validator offline prior to consensus group during consensus group Restake owner wallet Transfer ownership of stake to different validator node (same wallet, different wallet) Set up wallet tied to multiple validator nodesrds Unstake TNT, observe: no longer in consensus group no longer receiving rewards Take validator offline prior to consensus group during consensus group Restake owner wallet Transfer ownership of stake to different validator node (same wallet, different wallet) Set up wallet tied to multiple validator nodes
08:33
@krby We performed the 1st four, is there a guide to follow for the additional tests we are being asked to run?
Avatar
@M7: This is a better question for the #testnet-ops channel and I see you asked in there already this morning. I'll answer what I can in there.
Avatar
Avatar
krby
@M7: This is a better question for the #testnet-ops channel and I see you asked in there already this morning. I'll answer what I can in there.
Got it, thanks.
Avatar
What are the chances that Ledger staking will be ready before PoS launches?
⬆️ 3
Avatar
I expect that my poor understanding of the network may made be obvious by this suggestion. To reduce dependence on Helium, Inc, and perhaps make the system more fault tolerant/distributed, perhaps each validator should be paired with a publicly accessible OUI. (edited)
👀 1
Avatar
Is there a way of checking on explorer how many wallets there are with >10K HNT ...
Avatar
Avatar
AlexC
What are the chances that Ledger staking will be ready before PoS launches?
deasydoesit 04/11/2021 4:41 PM
Just wanted to bump this. I know the team is working incredibly hard, but Ledger staking would significantly improve the ease-of-use and security for the majority of prospective stakers.
Avatar
it's being worked on, is my understanding
16:47
but there are some out of our control aspects, maybe?
Avatar
Ya making the ledger wallet officially supported is gated on Ledger. Send their support a note. I did. No reply. The ledger wallet app isn't worked on directly by Helium, as I understand it. It is a community effort.
Avatar
@hashc0de what ever became of delegation. I think it would be a prudent thing to include in the current txns. That way an owner can delegate the rewards to another wallet without give up control to unstake/restake their validator.
Avatar
Avatar
chrisb
@hashc0de what ever became of delegation. I think it would be a prudent thing to include in the current txns. That way an owner can delegate the rewards to another wallet without give up control to unstake/restake their validator.
#hip-24-reward-splitting?
07:05
Or something more fancy?
Avatar
No validators specifically.
Avatar
Right but a delegated rewards model could be applied to any “rewardable” entity. Gateway, validator, hst
Avatar
Could be.
07:07
But seems seems like would be simpler in the validator case since those txns could take one additional argument.
07:07
I think with 24, it is more hotspot focused and locked until your re-assert location.
07:07
Which is a different txn.
07:08
If the delegation could be done before 25 went live, then no need for v2 txns.
07:08
or multiple txns to stake then delegate.
07:08
e.g., could all happen in single transaction when staking.
Avatar
Re reading your original message because I got myself on a tangent. The issue you’re concerned with is the wallet that is initiating the stake should be different than the one being rewarded? Given the launch plan of going with 10k flat (no over/understake) and a single wallet that’s different from the validator’s key, what problem are you trying to solve with having another reward account field on the validator?
Avatar
Yes want the reward wallet to be different that the owner (staking) wallet.
07:17
There a a bunch of VaaS companies. Being able to delegate the reward independently of the stake would a.) make it easier for VaaS and Pooling, b.) should help to protect the consumers using those services. Since it is so early, people are more exposed to unproven companies offering those services.
Avatar
Was discussed a ton already and punted, at least for now
Avatar
So should this be a new HIP then?
07:19
What is the follow up process for delegation and slashing?
Avatar
Sure? If the dependency is us building it then it will still take a while. Need to ship validators ASAP
Avatar
Avatar
chrisb
There a a bunch of VaaS companies. Being able to delegate the reward independently of the stake would a.) make it easier for VaaS and Pooling, b.) should help to protect the consumers using those services. Since it is so early, people are more exposed to unproven companies offering those services.
I think VaaS and Pooling are separable. The few VaaS companies who are doing full stake are okay with the current set up because it's already non-custodial. Pooling is potentially a reason to introduce this. Separate HIP makes sense for that.
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
I think VaaS and Pooling are separable. The few VaaS companies who are doing full stake are okay with the current set up because it's already non-custodial. Pooling is potentially a reason to introduce this. Separate HIP makes sense for that.
deasydoesit 04/12/2021 8:44 AM
I do think VaaS companies would like this as well given that in the current paradigm they’re providing a service, yet having to invoice clients for their fee periodically.
08:47
It would also greatly help for pool providers. For instance, a pool wallet could be kept securely in cold storage, while the rewards wallet could be implemented in a hotter arrangement.
Avatar
definitely an improvement, i agree. .
08:59
automatic "invoicing" makes sense for folks who want to charge in HNT. (I have spoken to a few who are interested in that) (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
I am certainly interested in that
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
automatic "invoicing" makes sense for folks who want to charge in HNT. (I have spoken to a few who are interested in that) (edited)
For tax-ish reasons, I think a lot of shared validator folks (or maybe even full VaaS) will want to charge in HNT. Especially if the pricing model is already "costs + x% of rewards" which seems to be common.
Avatar
totally understand but a blockchain can't necessarily operate in a way that's built around a local tax regime. i personally feel for it (since i'm under those tax laws) but also have to weigh priority of shipping validators sooner.
Avatar
There are other chains that have this feature like Solana. But in any case could be a separate HIP--Ideally with actual code.
🔥 1
Avatar
Actual code would be awesome. We’re starting to get some community get deep into erlang. Love to see it.
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
totally understand but a blockchain can't necessarily operate in a way that's built around a local tax regime. i personally feel for it (since i'm under those tax laws) but also have to weigh priority of shipping validators sooner.
Oh ya! totally agree. Absolutely get validators on mainnet first and iterate. There are offchain ways of managing this now, it's very similar to managing it for hosted hotspots.
👍 2
Avatar
QQ: So the coins earned from a validator, I can take those out of the wallet without a cooldown right? Just can't touch the original 10k?
Avatar
Avatar
Xilefblank
QQ: So the coins earned from a validator, I can take those out of the wallet without a cooldown right? Just can't touch the original 10k?
Correct. There is no cooldown or other restriction on the rewards from a validator.
Avatar
I've seen some google sheets with reward calc -- anyone have a link handy?
Avatar
Avatar
krby
Correct. There is no cooldown or other restriction on the rewards from a validator.
Even if automatically reinvested
Avatar
Avatar
kwatkins99
Even if automatically reinvested
There is no "reinvest" in HIP-25. If you're using a pool service, reinvesting is between you and the vendor.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
krby
There is no "reinvest" in HIP-25. If you're using a pool service, reinvesting is between you and the vendor.
Correct.
Avatar
Avatar
Xilefblank
I've seen some google sheets with reward calc -- anyone have a link handy?
Ramp Validators Regarding HIP 25,https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/master/0025-validators.md,Copied and Modified from @geophokus on Discord. All mistakes by @usurper. Purpose,Model Validator reward and percentage yield ...
Avatar
ty
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 11:35 AM
@Tekkie @jerm @evan curious what you guys think about this idea. I know somebody that's on a red team for penetration testing. He'd be interested in setting up DDoS attacks against the test net to test if this is a real issue in exchange for a DeWi grant
Avatar
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com)
@Tekkie @jerm @evan curious what you guys think about this idea. I know somebody that's on a red team for penetration testing. He'd be interested in setting up DDoS attacks against the test net to test if this is a real issue in exchange for a DeWi grant
Just don't send more than 10 Mbps to any of my infrastructure. I don't want to be taken offline. 🤣 On a serious note, I'd be interested in contributing to the conversation based on what I've seen and done to protect various networks over the years, but I'm not a cybersecurity expert (I just work in the field). The idea of automating the process to check who is in the CG and then targeting them specifically, either with sheer data in a layer 4 attack or with targeted request flooding to make the machine work itself to death (layer 7) is interesting. I'm sure there are other factors at play that may offer some protection or be exploitable. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com)
@Tekkie @jerm @evan curious what you guys think about this idea. I know somebody that's on a red team for penetration testing. He'd be interested in setting up DDoS attacks against the test net to test if this is a real issue in exchange for a DeWi grant
yes! Several of us have thought of things to try. Let's throw @hashc0de in there too, since we talked about "evil things to try", at least via DM.
Avatar
i love evil things
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 11:43 AM
@scott Thoughts here? There's an DDoS exploit of the validator network that's worth testing. Would DeWi be interested in providing a grant for the test? There's more information on the specific of what we're talking about in the #testnet-ops channel. Basically, somebody could DDoS competing validators so they're validators get in Consensus Group more often
Avatar
how would you mitigate that?
12:07
like, what's the test? of course you could try to ddos the whole group, you can do that today
Avatar
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com)
@scott Thoughts here? There's an DDoS exploit of the validator network that's worth testing. Would DeWi be interested in providing a grant for the test? There's more information on the specific of what we're talking about in the #testnet-ops channel. Basically, somebody could DDoS competing validators so they're validators get in Consensus Group more often
Closed grant applications for batch 1, but if someone can put together a spec around it for a viable bounty. I'm open to that.
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
how would you mitigate that?
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 12:56 PM
Im not the expert here but we'd have to figure out something. Maybe find ways to quickly reject packets that aren't valid, or find a way to quickly black list bad actors
Avatar
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com)
Im not the expert here but we'd have to figure out something. Maybe find ways to quickly reject packets that aren't valid, or find a way to quickly black list bad actors
honestly i am not sure this is in the scope at all. these are internet problems that pretty much every network or internet device has
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
like, what's the test? of course you could try to ddos the whole group, you can do that today
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 12:57 PM
Right now with CG split between 25k hotspots, it doesn't help much to take competitors out of CG. But when there's just a few hundred, there's a much larger incentive to take down your competitors
Avatar
i have no idea how you'd do anything about ddos'ing
12:57
also why it's recommended to run in a cloud or data center who deal with these attacks on a regular basis
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 12:58 PM
Well you can just buy a cheap clouflare serivce to help deal with this
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 12:58 PM
If somebody can figure out a level 7 ddos attack though it won't be picked up as a regular ddos
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 12:58 PM
It is littaerly free
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 12:58 PM
cloudflare can help with level 4 but can they with level 7? (edited)
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 12:58 PM
At that point you have bigger problems
Avatar
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com)
If somebody can figure out a level 7 ddos attack though it won't be picked up as a regular ddos
i mean if you have some proposal on how to deal with that then by all means. but i dont know that there's any on-chain mechanism to help with the fact that n amount of the validators get ddos'd. what would it be?
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 12:59 PM
The goal to testing it is to figure out IF a penetration tester could bring down the network, or manipulate it. If they can then we'd need to figure out something, no?
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 12:59 PM
TBH, if you want to ddos that many. You would need at least 200 of the nodes to be ddos'ed.
Avatar
i dont think there's any reason to test, there's nothing to learn
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 1:00 PM
But at that point anyone can drop there node, and relaunch with a new ip like in 30 secs
Avatar
Avatar
maco2035 🐮
TBH, if you want to ddos that many. You would need at least 200 of the nodes to be ddos'ed.
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 1:00 PM
you'd only need to ddos the competing validators currently in CG
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 1:00 PM
Not hard tbh
Avatar
we should enforce the election having diversity of clouds and regions within clouds, is about the best i could come up with
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 1:00 PM
You can change the ipv4 if you can gossip it. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com)
cloudflare can help with level 4 but can they with level 7? (edited)
CF protects layer 7, not layer 4. Well... they hide the IP which can help protect layer 4 too but it's not what their actual functionality is. (edited)
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 1:01 PM
Maybe we should bring in somebody who has experience with DDoSS to come up with possible solutions no?
Avatar
but otherwise if someone is able to coordinate a large scale ddos against 35+ CG members then more power to them. there's nothing we could design to protect that
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 1:01 PM
At that point you can hard fork with a new CG
13:01
Not really hard.
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 1:01 PM
So if Im able to do it, nobody will bring legal action against me? 😉
yolo 1
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 1:01 PM
You need helium and dewi to sign
Avatar
ddos'ing is illegal
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 1:01 PM
Yolo
13:02
Dont do it
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 1:02 PM
Yeah I know that's why I wouldn't haha
Avatar
Even with "permission", they don't have the ability to give you permission to flood their hosting provider's network.
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 1:02 PM
but I think somebody could cover there tracks and do it
Avatar
A freiend and I talked thru this (attack would be tons of telnet 2148 to the current CGs that aren't mine) and the things we came up to defend all end up looking like iptables that swaps things in and out quickly. But that fails because you'd need the whole peer book and then the packet filter is so wide it seems easy to getr around. (edited)
Avatar
but yea i dont think there's anything to test here and aside from trying to enforce diversity of CG members there's no on-chain mechanism to prevent ddos'ing
Avatar
Avatar
Tekkie
Even with "permission", they don't have the ability to give you permission to flood their hosting provider's network.
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 1:03 PM
wait you have to have aggreements with both ends, but the hosting proviter, should be able to deal with traffic then right? Because now it is legit traffic.
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
but yea i dont think there's anything to test here and aside from trying to enforce diversity of CG members there's no on-chain mechanism to prevent ddos'ing
Agree, it's really "I have to be TCP open to the world, but I want to defend against a flood of TCP (or actually app protocol) connections." It's a well known problem with AFAIK, not any great solution. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
maco2035 🐮
wait you have to have aggreements with both ends, but the hosting proviter, should be able to deal with traffic then right? Because now it is legit traffic.
It's not legitimate traffic. The only way to get around it is if you pretend to not know it's happening and just say it's a random attack that they're supposed to protect you from.
Avatar
Avatar
krby
Agree, it's really "I have to be TCP open to the world, but I want to defend against a flood of TCP (or actually app protocol) connections." It's a well known problem with AFAIK, not any great solution. (edited)
right. if someone figures that out let me know 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
right. if someone figures that out let me know 🙂
ya. THAT's a game changer.
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 1:05 PM
So wouldn't the easiest way to ddos attack would be to send a transaction that the validators have to churn on?
13:05
Couldn't some logic be implemented that prevent validators from churning on them quicker
Avatar
Avatar
krby
ya. THAT's a game changer.
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 1:05 PM
5000 hnt bounty from me. And I might need to get a patent too.
Avatar
there's already a txn time out. i dont know what churn means
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 1:06 PM
process the transactions
Avatar
this is part of why we don't have a general purpose smart contract/scripting language. the transactions and what they do are very tightly bounded. they just get ignored if we don't understand them
Avatar
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com)
So wouldn't the easiest way to ddos attack would be to send a transaction that the validators have to churn on?
Eaiser would be just flood tcp connections to 2148. It doesn't take a bunch of CPU cycles, but it does take effort and some bandwidth to do the handshake and some kernel resources while the socket is in TIME_WAIT and all that. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
this is part of why we don't have a general purpose smart contract/scripting language. the transactions and what they do are very tightly bounded. they just get ignored if we don't understand them
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 1:07 PM
the whole point of erlang. You need to have all the prams, so you always process them
13:07
So cool
Avatar
Avatar
krby
Eaiser would be just flood tcp connections to 2148. It doesn't take a bunch of CPU cycles, but it does take effort and some bandwidth to do the handshake and some kernel resources while the socket is in TIME_WAIT and all that. (edited)
Err, "easier" to writer the attacking client. But you'd need them to do more work each (more connections needed overall)
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 1:07 PM
My question is when the lite gateways start
13:07
How many devices per node are going to be connected.
13:07
10k?
13:07
20k?
Avatar
the old multi-hop poc transactions were about as bad as it could get, where thousands of possible paths had to be calculated each time a transaction was validated. and even then the raspberry pi's eventually figured that out in a few seconds per transaction
Avatar
Avatar
maco2035 🐮
How many devices per node are going to be connected.
Right originally, I was thinking I could script iptables or AWS SGs to contain just the CG members, but...duh...people have to be able to submit transactions.
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 1:08 PM
Is there any barrier to entry for submitting a transaction? Could that be increased?
Avatar
there are transaction fees for this reason
13:09
cost you 35 cents per payment transaction, and they get processed with almost no overhead on a fast system
Avatar
Avatar
krby
Right originally, I was thinking I could script iptables or AWS SGs to contain just the CG members, but...duh...people have to be able to submit transactions.
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 1:09 PM
What I was thinking, have 2 levels, one group of miners that genrate the tranactions, then have validators,
13:10
Because I rather the validators not get ddos, by the amount of packets that lite gatways will genreate
Avatar
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com)
Is there any barrier to entry for submitting a transaction? Could that be increased?
I still think you're attacking the wrong end (CPU effort for transactions). Take the pattern of a traditional DDOS, lots of attacker nodes each sending creating traffic, just by connecting or sending. I could just connect to 2148, spew garbage, and then not disconnect. The validator/miner could (probably does) have a timeout, but even if that's low I just connecting and sending 10bytes can be a problem when there are many many attackers. (edited)
Avatar
yea, that's exactly right. and there is no mechanism to prevent against that
13:12
it's just how TCP works
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 1:13 PM
Seems like an easy attack for a cloudflare or somebody like that to detect and stop
Avatar
thats what i mean by out of scope of HIP25 or anything on-chain
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 1:13 PM
vs sending a real invalid packet which would be harder for a high level observer to detect
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 1:13 PM
UDP is where it is at. Just send them the packets and hope and pray.
Avatar
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com)
Seems like an easy attack for a cloudflare or somebody like that to detect and stop
It ends up being really difficult to differentiate: 1000 attackers doing TCP connections from:1000 customer going to a website. We have essentially the same problem here. (edited)
Avatar
the regular DOS'es are easier to stop, as they come from a single source and you can just block it quickly
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 1:14 PM
Exactly, so it'd have to be mitigated at the application level right?
Avatar
but when you have botnets of hundreds of thousands of devices in consumer homes (ie. Mirai) it's much harder
Avatar
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com)
Exactly, so it'd have to be mitigated at the application level right?
Right...and you can't really is what capcom and I are saying. It's been sort of a known problem large web sites have thought deeply about for years and not come up with anything great.
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 1:16 PM
@capcom what prevents a data center thinking that lite gatways are used as an attack vector?
Avatar
i dont know enough about how their ddos detection stuff works
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 1:16 PM
That is my concern
Avatar
Because you can always just connect and send garbage from a pile of attackers (a botnet) and there's no easy way to block that except blacklisting IPs but if the botnet is distributed enough then you're limiting who can actually talk to you. (edited)
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 1:17 PM
Some of the Datacenters may see this is an attack.
13:17
And blocked all traffic
Avatar
you don't really need to send garbage, just hanging out on connections sucks resources. Websites have this problem now, or anyone running a REST API. (edited)
13:19
Anti-DDOS for tcp/layer 7 type attacks can work sometimes, but generally fail if the list of allowed source IPs is supposed to be the whole Internet.
Avatar
Avatar
krby
Right...and you can't really is what capcom and I are saying. It's been sort of a known problem large web sites have thought deeply about for years and not come up with anything great.
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 1:19 PM
But our use case isn't entirely like a normal website. The senders of the packets should be miners within the network. I think there's probably ways to mitigate knowing that.
13:19
for us it's not the whole internet though right
13:19
we can blacklist known bad actors
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 1:19 PM
Unless you can get them to make a peerlist
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 1:19 PM
and there can be a barrier to entry to join the network
Avatar
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com)
But our use case isn't entirely like a normal website. The senders of the packets should be miners within the network. I think there's probably ways to mitigate knowing that.
That's where I was going with my "dynamic iptables" thinking. But AFAIK, anyone can send a transaciton? Or do they have to go thru a hotspot?
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 1:19 PM
Like it is hard
Avatar
Avatar
krby
That's where I was going with my "dynamic iptables" thinking. But AFAIK, anyone can send a transaciton? Or do they have to go thru a hotspot?
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 1:20 PM
This seems like a bad idea tbh
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 1:20 PM
gotcha
Avatar
Avatar
maco2035 🐮
This seems like a bad idea tbh
It does, once these lists get big, you end up cutting off desired traffic accidentally.
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 1:20 PM
That is what I mean
13:20
Unless you control the ip's
13:20
Like if you have a /14
13:21
You can't do anything
Avatar
My original thinking was "ok, allow only current CG or MAYBE current staked validators" then change it each election" but..then my val can't accpet transactions from anyone!
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 1:22 PM
So part of this has to do with the fact that validators have scores
13:22
We got rid of scores on hotspots because it was found only cheaters had good scores
13:22
maybe we need to rethink that part of it
13:25
I still think there's plenty to be learned from a having somebody ddos the testnet. Such as how easy is it, what's the easiest attack vector etc. Maybe they can come up with mitigation ideas as they are attacking.
13:25
A sort of Helium red/blue team
Avatar
Regarding the DDoS attack against the P2P port, a practical solution is to allow validators to exclusively connect to trusted peers. This could be a private group of bastion nodes and/or other trusted validators. Any DDoS attack can therefore not be opened directly on port 2148 of a validator.
Avatar
how do others submit transactions to be included in blocks?
Avatar
The outwards facing bastion nodes would be connected to the wider network, but only they would be allowed to relay transactions to the validators.
13:42
Say i have 2 validators and 4 non-validating nodes, and i pair up with 3 other trusted validators who, for the sake of the argument, have the same number of validating and non-validating nodes. We then each whitelist all available non-validating nodes at our disposal, and those non-validating nodes would then relay well-formed transactions to our validators. We effectively guard our 8 validators with 16 non-validating nodes and also make it much more difficult for an attacker to identify what those guard nodes are. (edited)
13:44
Am i making sense?
Avatar
deasydoesit 04/13/2021 1:47 PM
Seems like in such a configuration the bastion is just a proxy, so why couldn’t one just ddos the bastion to indirectly cut off the validator?
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 1:48 PM
there'd be a lot more bastions to ddos
13:48
he said 2 to 4 but could be 1 to 5
Avatar
Could be 1 to 5, yeah. If you're in a group with other people, could be 20 to 4. Whilst it's the same ratio, 20 is a much more difficult prospect than 5, and it is unlikely that all 4 validators are in the CG at the same time (edited)
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 1:51 PM
But it could be difficult to relay through normal miners because they're physical hotspots in somebodys house
13:51
ah but what if you use the non CG validators
Avatar
You could just use validators that have no stake
13:51
So, just nodes. I dunno what to call them
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 1:52 PM
Id just use validators that are staked but aren't currently in CG
13:52
wouldn't that make sense?
Avatar
They'd still be exposed to the wider network in that case and you can't be sure when they'd be set to join the CG
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 1:52 PM
It could be a way to level our rewards to validators too, like they could get paid just to be relayers
13:53
How do you incentivize a non staked validator to do this relay work?
Avatar
You run it yourself, that would kind of be the point, as it needs to be trusted
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 1:54 PM
You mean like each validator runs their own bastions?
Avatar
Yup. Ideally you would join together with other trusted validators to share resources, thereby making it cheaper and more resilient (i.e. more available relays for any given validator)
13:56
If i can connect to your bastions and you can connect to mine, we now both have more peers without increasing our expenditure
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 1:56 PM
Is there no way to just have non CG validators do the relay work? Maybe some kind of first check.
Avatar
These non-CG validators could presumably be elected at any moment though, right? You'd need to have dynamic rule sets. What i had in mind was static. Supposing you could create that somehow, I'm not sure you could find enough trusted peers amongst active validators to have non-CG guard the consensus group
13:59
Unless the network just did all that for you
13:59
Sounds hard 😄
Avatar
Charles (nowisensors.com) 04/13/2021 2:00 PM
gotcha, Im not familiar with how hard it is to change the rules set
Avatar
I am trying to adapt the idea from other networks i have worked with. It is simple though admittedly comparatively expensive, given that you need to pay for the relays
14:02
I think bitcoin miners have something similar
14:03
They peer directly with each other to reduce latency and increase resistance to DDoS. I'm not sure if they have guard nodes or not
Avatar
deasydoesit 04/13/2021 2:12 PM
So would one of the bastion(s) assume the static ip address of the validator?
Avatar
No, but you configure a firewall to only accept connections from your whitelisted nodes (edited)
Avatar
deasydoesit 04/13/2021 2:17 PM
The firewall at the validator or bastion level?
Avatar
The validator. It whitelists the bastions to act as relays and you put up a firewall around it that will only connect to those nodes.
👍 1
Avatar
Apologies for the terrible diagram. Hopefully it's not so terrible as to make things more confusing rather than less
👍 1
14:40
IRL there'd be more arrows, but i got fed up of drawing them
Avatar
deasydoesit 04/13/2021 3:10 PM
This could very well be me failing to understand networking, but the validators have static ip addresses which are used by other validators in performance of network functions. But then we have bastions sitting between the validators and the other validators in the network, in some cases a plurality of bastions, each presumably with its own unique IP address. So, how do the other validators in the network successfully communicate with our validators when they're sitting behind a plurality of bastions and they only know one ip address? (edited)
Avatar
I don't know the specifics of Helium networking so take this with a bucket of salt. However, generally speaking, in the type of P2P network commonly used by public blockchains, messages are rebroadcast by each node that encounters them until all nodes in the network have seen the message. I would not expect validators to require a direct connection with each other to see messages. In other blockchain networks, a node does not care who is in its peer list or whether those nodes are active in the validator set. The important thing is whether the messages it receives are valid, not where they come from (edited)
15:27
The epidemic analogy used in the wikipedia article is apt
Avatar
deasydoesit 04/13/2021 4:07 PM
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I would love it if anybody on the helium team has any thoughts on this matter.
Avatar
could you tldr?
16:17
otherwise I can review it later
Avatar
deasydoesit 04/13/2021 4:17 PM
tldr how can validators protect from ddos attacks
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/13/2021 4:17 PM
Well tldr. have validators, then another layer of trusted nodes that can only talk to validators
16:17
That then can talk to the world
Avatar
how would that work?
16:20
wouldn't people just ddos the exit nodes?
Avatar
How many validators are going to stake 10k when the system goes live? I get the testnet cause you can get them from a facet..
Avatar
Avatar
Gateway
How many validators are going to stake 10k when the system goes live? I get the testnet cause you can get them from a facet..
I have seen a lot of numbers thrown around. at least 300-500
Avatar
Avatar
Gateway
How many validators are going to stake 10k when the system goes live? I get the testnet cause you can get them from a facet..
We don't know for sure. See history on this channel for guesses and estimates. Personally I think at least 250 at start.
Avatar
yea, I hope so, I think this is the right direction for Helium, thats 40m locked up and staked.. not that I have any say but does the system allow x amount of users to stake and gets rewards like some pool-stake sites? Might get more over time if people could donate (stake) their HNT to a pool that operates as a validator
Avatar
there are people setting up pools and VaaSes
Avatar
Avatar
Gateway
yea, I hope so, I think this is the right direction for Helium, thats 40m locked up and staked.. not that I have any say but does the system allow x amount of users to stake and gets rewards like some pool-stake sites? Might get more over time if people could donate (stake) their HNT to a pool that operates as a validator
See the "VENDORS-STAKING" collection of channels on this Discord server.
Avatar
lol, you told me to come here , now i gotta go elsewhere 🙂
16:27
I wasnt sure if the validation software being built had that functionality or is that someone that needs to be added as a frontend etc..
Avatar
Heh. I actually said (in the validator channel so other people have context) : "There are a few staking pools. Checkout discussion in #hip-25-validators and also the VENDORS-STAKING group of channels here on discord."
Avatar
need a road map to maneuver though all these channels 🙂 anyhow thanks i wont be bothering you anymore.
Avatar
np! Re-reading my comments, I guess it comes off like I'm being short with you. Didn't mean it that way at all.
Avatar
np, its fine I have thick skin from being in crypto since 2012 and building our own ASIC BTC miners.. i get it 🙂 anyhow cheers.. back to my world domination plans
Avatar
Now that the DDoS convo died down I figured I’d jump in and mention that I’ve come across a few more people that didn’t realize the unlock vs unbond thing
20:45
Might not be the right verbiage. But people not realizing you don’t get access to tokens after 5 months automatically. Not nearly as important as the other shit your discussing but worth noting from a messaging standpoint. Gonna be a lot of annoyed people that didn’t read the fine print.
Avatar
maco2035 🐮 04/14/2021 4:25 AM
@JMF I 100% agree with you!
04:25
I believe that there should be an easy way to unbound the tokens insted of 5 months
04:26
I was thinking that it should be a lockup from the start.
04:26
So the first 5 months there is going to be no issue
Avatar
Im not arguing for or against the system just the messaging. 5 months is definitely a pain and is going to cause more pulling of validators as the return lessens but that’s a blessing and a curse.
05:03
I do like that there isn’t a clear “unlocking day” after 5 months, but that would happen with any number of months.
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Might not be the right verbiage. But people not realizing you don’t get access to tokens after 5 months automatically. Not nearly as important as the other shit your discussing but worth noting from a messaging standpoint. Gonna be a lot of annoyed people that didn’t read the fine print.
Regarding the automatic access to tokens after the cooldown period, I have noticed something related. The tokens just spontaneously appear in your balance after the cooldown. There is no transaction at that point - nothing appears in your account's activity log. I think that is a challenge for the reasons you mentioned (clear understanding of the process) as well as from an accounting perspective (cumulative transactions don't equal balance during the cooldown period). I think there should be a stake release (or something) transaction triggered.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
PaulM
Regarding the automatic access to tokens after the cooldown period, I have noticed something related. The tokens just spontaneously appear in your balance after the cooldown. There is no transaction at that point - nothing appears in your account's activity log. I think that is a challenge for the reasons you mentioned (clear understanding of the process) as well as from an accounting perspective (cumulative transactions don't equal balance during the cooldown period). I think there should be a stake release (or something) transaction triggered.
maco2035 🐮 04/14/2021 6:41 AM
Oh yeah, I saw that happen to my tnt wallet.
06:41
It just showed up.
Avatar
@JMF agree about the messaging. I keep thinking an example would help. The example would demonstrate staking, getting rewards (and how those are not subject to a cooldown), then unstake, then cooldown. I'll write something up after morning meetings. (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Just to get this correct, to be a validator you would have to be able to buy 10k HNT and operate a server? Is there anywhere out there where you can be pay the fraction of the cost for a fraction of the profits?
Avatar
Avatar
conway220
Just to get this correct, to be a validator you would have to be able to buy 10k HNT and operate a server? Is there anywhere out there where you can be pay the fraction of the cost for a fraction of the profits?
check out the channels in the left under VENDORS-STAKING
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Might not be the right verbiage. But people not realizing you don’t get access to tokens after 5 months automatically. Not nearly as important as the other shit your discussing but worth noting from a messaging standpoint. Gonna be a lot of annoyed people that didn’t read the fine print.
“Unbonding period” is the standard terminology I’ve seen in other proof of stake systems. It always refers to the period between deciding to unstake and receiving freely transferable tokens in what I’ve seen. Is there some other term you would suggest to describe this in a more accessible way? (edited)
Avatar
Deleted User 04/14/2021 3:43 PM
Agree with Tushar on "Unbonding Period". I don't know it by any other name.
Avatar
It's the right term-of-art but I think we could help with confusion for folks who don't have experience with staking in other systems. I think a concrete example goes a long way to helping people picturing what will happen
Avatar
@Tushar I'm not sure if there's a specific term. Might just be a trial by fire kind of thing. I just know people are going to run into issues.
Avatar
What happens after validators are launched, and the price of HNT increases drastically, say $150. I assume the staking amount would drop to a less than 10,000 hnt value. How do original stakers get the difference in HNT back and is that hnt required to cool down?
Avatar
why would it drop? It needs to stay at 10,000
Avatar
So it will cost $1.5 million to stake a validator? People begin to argue the same thing about helium that they do about bitcoin that is controlled by a small group of people and no longer the peoples network.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/16/2021 5:25 AM
@j3rm tsk tsk no price talk!!!
05:26
Remember when 10k was picked the oracle was a lot lower, this could be the reaction to folks wanting to take part
Avatar
It was only used to give context to the question.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/16/2021 5:26 AM
If the staking number was double , likely the same thing would have happened
05:27
There were plenty of calls for 20k so it can't be changed now, this is people reacting (edited)
05:28
You can't set a number and then change the social contract , that would annoy a lot of folks (edited)
❤️ 1
Avatar
I was more asking if there is a mechanism in place to return HNT to those who have already staked validators should the number be dropped from 10,000 HNT in the future. 
Avatar
I think the solution would be to stake with a VaaS provider that allows you to withdraw portions of your stake.
Avatar
Hard pass.
05:30
..doesn’t answer the question at a global level
Avatar
So you are suggesting the option to reduce the stake minimum in the future?
Avatar
I’m suggesting that there should be a mechanism in place, should that be allowed. I’ve seen some serious bugs on the testnet, and a feature like this needs to be tested before it’s put into the mainnet. Having a bug that potentially loses someone’s HNT would be devastating to the network.
05:40
I’m also seeking confirmation that this feature is or is not part of hip 25. And if it was added would require another hip to be added.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/16/2021 5:44 AM
If the stake drops to half you're going to need to unstake and wait atm, it's a great subject for a potential hip, but more of a future problem, I doubt interest at 10k hnt would be low for example , requiring a drop in stake
Avatar
Avatar
j3rm
I’m suggesting that there should be a mechanism in place, should that be allowed. I’ve seen some serious bugs on the testnet, and a feature like this needs to be tested before it’s put into the mainnet. Having a bug that potentially loses someone’s HNT would be devastating to the network.
Write a HIP.
👍 3
Avatar
add/reduce stake would need to be added
07:00
it's not hard to do so, we just punted on it
07:01
since the initial decision was no overstake, which would be the largest driver of use
Avatar
Funkyanimal 04/16/2021 7:03 AM
I view the validator hnt minimum stake as an ownership interest...just like a equity in a public stock. With that in mind, while I don't have an issue with the current minimum, I'd rather it be a % of the outstanding circulation. For example, at 0.01% equity the minimum would be ~7850. This allows for token burns and future changes in circulation. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
j3rm
I was more asking if there is a mechanism in place to return HNT to those who have already staked validators should the number be dropped from 10,000 HNT in the future. 
changing the staking number would require some form of return, yes, but I think that would be prep for changing the number, rather than going live. we can spin up another testnet if needed
Avatar
Avatar
Funkyanimal
I view the validator hnt minimum stake as an ownership interest...just like a equity in a public stock. With that in mind, while I don't have an issue with the current minimum, I'd rather it be a % of the outstanding circulation. For example, at 0.01% equity the minimum would be ~7850. This allows for token burns and future changes in circulation. (edited)
this would mean that it would get more expensive over time
Avatar
Funkyanimal 04/16/2021 7:08 AM
Relative to HNT, yes. If HNT falls against the dollar, no.
Avatar
it's a fun idea, but hard to implement cleanly
07:12
also it would end up just being a threshold
07:12
what would it mean to stake now vs next year?
Avatar
Funkyanimal 04/16/2021 7:13 AM
Understood... I also see it as justification for the current minimum. You have to have ownership close to 0.01% of the network to be a validator.
Avatar
would overstake be possible? or would a stake just be a stake
Avatar
Funkyanimal 04/16/2021 7:14 AM
Not a fan of overstaking... Once you've reach the minimum, I see all validators as equal.
07:16
At this point... You guys are doing a great job with the current Testnet. I don't want to detract from moving forward. Keep up the fantastic work.
🙌🏼 1
Avatar
It seems like add/reduce is required if the stake amount is ever changed or overstaking is allowed. Those operations would just be part of the work of rolling out overstaking or any change in minimum stake.
👍 1
Avatar
SO, 1. does having a high penalty (9) diminish the ability to be addes to CG? 2. How can I bring my penalty down? (edited)
08:25
i also have soimwhat high failures in CG, Maybe I increase my size of DigitalOcean
08:26
after the CG ends of course
08:31
wrong page sorry
Avatar
isn't the staking amount (10k) a chain var?
09:26
any overage amount of we changed the var would be ignored
09:27
currently transfer takes the entire stake
09:27
changing that var post-launch will entail a lot of work
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
There were plenty of calls for 20k so it can't be changed now, this is people reacting (edited)
i don't really agree with this statement. i'm okay with 10k stake but going off the number of questions on why it is so high and requests to have it lowered if this is really community driven then it should probably be reconsidered
Avatar
Avatar
gradoj
i don't really agree with this statement. i'm okay with 10k stake but going off the number of questions on why it is so high and requests to have it lowered if this is really community driven then it should probably be reconsidered
deasydoesit 04/16/2021 3:45 PM
But if it was lowered people would complain too so it’s a double edged sword ⚔
Avatar
I'm not an expert, but it seems to be very reasonable to have the ability to change the stake amount. And I agree with the statement that if in the HNT price goes to the moon + halving + more hotspots to divide the mining/poc rewards, the access to become a validator will be impossible.
15:50
I'm mining all that is possible to become a validator asap, in the future this can take years.... or you are going to have to spend some millions...
15:51
again not an expert.... just some thoughts
Avatar
deasydoesit 04/16/2021 3:51 PM
There are staking pools fwiw so even people without 10k HNT can participate
Avatar
the basic concern is that we mint 500 validators a month, potentially
15:52
at the 10k level
Avatar
deasydoesit 04/16/2021 3:53 PM
That would be disgusting lol
15:53
Probably good for the network, I guess
Avatar
so a deep-pocketed attacker could conceptually drive the per-validator return into the floor and try to wait out everyone else (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
deasydoesit
There are staking pools fwiw so even people without 10k HNT can participate
I know, that will be the way to go in the future
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
evan
the basic concern is that we mint 500 validators a month, potentially
got it. Yeah, this is something for the future. I just think that you guys should be able to change in case is needed.
16:03
it's just work
18:59
Friendly reminder that most people in our straw poll thought the 10k stake requirement was either good or should be higher
👆 4
Avatar
Original message was deleted or could not be loaded.
Do you have any ideas on how the voting system would work? What would be considered the best way to gauge consensus? For example last time I looked there was more than 27k hotspots but there was 30k wallets. Would it need to be a percentage of the wallets or hotspots or a combination?
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/17/2021 4:35 AM
Discord has 25k members and there are only 76 votes in total? How would a voting mechanism change alter the amount of people voting? (edited)
04:36
And this is for #hip-discussion not this hip
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
And this is for #hip-discussion not this hip
I can see this conversation kinda being a gray area.. it started because of the straw poll for this HIP.. but discussing the voting mechanism further should be moved 👍
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
Friendly reminder that most people in our straw poll thought the 10k stake requirement was either good or should be higher
Well alot has changed just since Feb. Taking that into consideration and the fact validators have not been rolled out yet now would be the time to change it. J3rm also brings up a good point if helium continues to have success there is no easy mechanism built in to change the stake amount
Avatar
If the Helium network is controlled by those who own hotspots, is the allocation of revenue to HST holders open to reconsideration along with all of the other pie slices? I'm not advocating reducing their distribution... but I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point there was a movement amongst the thousands of hotspot owners to cut the percentage going to HST.
@GP haha this may come up sooner than you would expect. it worked for increasing their share but i have my doubts about going the other direction https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/730248256814317608/832797099112005664
Avatar
One day a channel will be on topic. Today is not that day
😓 2
😆 1
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
One day a channel will be on topic. Today is not that day
Your hope is inspring.... ...and completely wrong on the Internet 🙂 (edited)
Avatar
It's just a glimmer these days
Avatar
The $25k DC burn option to startup a validator sounds pretty nice still Troll (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Anthonyra
The $25k DC burn option to startup a validator sounds pretty nice still Troll (edited)
Does this option exist ? 🤔
Avatar
it was a devil's advocate alternate plan
Avatar
I’m still okay with it… but no. Looks like we’re going to be launching with a 10k locked up stake. (edited)
Avatar
It doesn’t have to be there for launch.. but I’ll be burning the second it’s available 🚀
Avatar
Avatar
gradoj
If the Helium network is controlled by those who own hotspots, is the allocation of revenue to HST holders open to reconsideration along with all of the other pie slices? I'm not advocating reducing their distribution... but I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point there was a movement amongst the thousands of hotspot owners to cut the percentage going to HST.
@GP haha this may come up sooner than you would expect. it worked for increasing their share but i have my doubts about going the other direction https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/730248256814317608/832797099112005664
In response to a well-taken complaint that it was not in the correct channel, the original message of this chain was edited and moved to #hip-discussion .
Avatar
so the cost to set up a validator is 10K HNT? It looks like a HNT +- $12? so cost to add a validator is $120,000?
Avatar
Avatar
jackie
so the cost to set up a validator is 10K HNT? It looks like a HNT +- $12? so cost to add a validator is $120,000?
Yep! If you intend to buy the 10k HNT...
Avatar
@mrcustodio thank you
Avatar
I have a question about the pressures to increase the CG size. I’m not sure on my facts but I believe a CG is 16 at this time. Once validator go live and people have staked them., there may be expectations that those users have on their ROI. I expect this pressure to exist more with users in validator pools. Could this pressure be released by increasing the number of validator in the CG before needed so that the rewards are spread around more and the network does not loose validators because users don’t see the ROI they may have expected. Or will the CG stay at 16 for a while since validators are more powerful than hotspots. TIA (edited)
Avatar
what is the perceived relationship between CG size and rewards?
16:23
the size of the CG should be irrelevant from a rewards POV
Avatar
Avatar
j3rm
I have a question about the pressures to increase the CG size. I’m not sure on my facts but I believe a CG is 16 at this time. Once validator go live and people have staked them., there may be expectations that those users have on their ROI. I expect this pressure to exist more with users in validator pools. Could this pressure be released by increasing the number of validator in the CG before needed so that the rewards are spread around more and the network does not loose validators because users don’t see the ROI they may have expected. Or will the CG stay at 16 for a while since validators are more powerful than hotspots. TIA (edited)
According to evancc, one of the goals of the validator code is to increase CG size. So I believe they'll go live with more than 16 right away. The network benefits from a larger number CG. Also, asumming all validators behave the same, the ROI is really a function of total rewards allocated to CG divided by total number of validators. It should all average out in the end. A smaller CG size could make the CG rewards feel more lumpy, I guess. But I bet we don't see that with a few hundred validators. It's dramatic now because 16 is much smaller than the total number of hotspots/miners. (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
I have a somewhat silly question.. I'm still wrapping my head around the concept of Validators.. watched the video/etc.. Can you confirm.. The geolocation of HNT miners matters a lot.. because they connect with other nearby miners and are negatively impacted when other miners are too close.. does geolocation matter for validators? For example, will a validator too close to another validator negatively impact both? Also, is a validator with no miners nearby negatively impacted compared to one in a region with many miners nearby? Or, do validators just need stable internet connectivity to support connectivity to miners via internet? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
.rsd.
I have a somewhat silly question.. I'm still wrapping my head around the concept of Validators.. watched the video/etc.. Can you confirm.. The geolocation of HNT miners matters a lot.. because they connect with other nearby miners and are negatively impacted when other miners are too close.. does geolocation matter for validators? For example, will a validator too close to another validator negatively impact both? Also, is a validator with no miners nearby negatively impacted compared to one in a region with many miners nearby? Or, do validators just need stable internet connectivity to support connectivity to miners via internet? (edited)
In principle, validator location should have no impact on rewards, regardless of whether it is colocated with another validator or on the other side of the world. In practice, network latency may or may not impact rewards - the jury is still out on that. In my experience, validators in Europe are not at a disadvantage relative to validators in the US, where they are mostly concentrated. Take from that what you will.
Avatar
Ring-ding-ding-ding-dingeringedi 04/21/2021 12:42 PM
I am still not totally clear on the ROI of staking as a validator, but given I will be waiting at least 2 months for my hotspots to arrive I am interested in getting involved. Is there a decent resource on the financials of it?
Avatar
Avatar
Ring-ding-ding-ding-dingeringedi
I am still not totally clear on the ROI of staking as a validator, but given I will be waiting at least 2 months for my hotspots to arrive I am interested in getting involved. Is there a decent resource on the financials of it?
Checked the pinned messages. There is one called "staking links" that links to a few different spreadsheets community members have done.
Avatar
Avatar
krby
Checked the pinned messages. There is one called "staking links" that links to a few different spreadsheets community members have done.
Ring-ding-ding-ding-dingeringedi 04/21/2021 1:19 PM
thanks!
Avatar
I'm a little unclear on overstaking. The minimum stake is 10k, is anything above that staked to one validator considered overstake? (edited)
Avatar
That's what overstaking means I'm most cryptocurrency systems. But for validators initial launch on helium overstaking will not be allowed.
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 04/21/2021 7:34 PM
Did this change?
Avatar
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI
Did this change?
They may decide to start with 16, but based on what we're seeing on testnet, I expect "will quickly increase" means hours not weeks.
👍 1
Avatar
☹ GHOSTY BOI 04/21/2021 7:39 PM
Thanks, I was trying to read through it all but my search skills are lacking tonight. Is the CG still going to be random or did this HIP cancel out HIP 16 as well?
19:40
I was reading the new penalty stuff and the likelihood for CG election but couldn't find it in the HIP
Avatar
The penalty stuff is not in the HIP, is evolving with each release and will likely evolve after launching on mainnet.
19:43
CG election is weighted random. Where the weights are penalties and also how long you've been in CG. Validator can be in a CG more than one election in a row, but every election after the first applies a "penalty" to reduce the chance that validator keeps getting elected. That plus actual penalites for being slow or not responding when doing the work of the CG all factor into the likelyhood of election.
19:43
If you want details, it's probably better to ask on #testnet-ops
Avatar
I would like to suggest something, my first post here so I’m not too sure if this has been suggested before. With the upcoming change to move validator‘s as a separate and convert all gateways to lite gateways. My suggestion would be to split the work between the non-lite gateways and the validator’s. To offer greater scalability and diversity in the consensus of the blockchain. Just lite gateways moving forward but utilize the previous non-lites to aid in validation. Just my $.02 (edited)
Avatar
most of the reason for validators is to get off the gateways
Avatar
Hi, I have a question regarding the calculation of validator returns on testnet. I launched my validator ~8 hours ago, and it has earned 84 TNT during that time. If I use this 8 hour average and extrapolate yearly TNT earned (84 * 3 * 30 * 12) it comes to ~900%. Given the current numbers of validators (~175) and amount staked on testnet, I would have guessed it would be closer to 170% returns. Should I be calculating this differently? (edited)
Avatar
the testnet is tuned quite differently
19:22
more elections, less tnt
Avatar
didn't quite understand that sorry
Avatar
I don't know who to reach-out to, but I understand there is work on reducing the compute load at Helium gateways by moving a portion of the validation to the cloud. Anyone know how I track the status on that?
09:50
Helium Improvement Proposals. Contribute to helium/HIP development by creating an account on GitHub.
09:50
Sorry, the terminology is still quite a learning curve for me.
Avatar
Avatar
jkridner
I don't know who to reach-out to, but I understand there is work on reducing the compute load at Helium gateways by moving a portion of the validation to the cloud. Anyone know how I track the status on that?
that's right
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
that's right
thanks!!!
Avatar
Avatar
krby
That's what overstaking means I'm most cryptocurrency systems. But for validators initial launch on helium overstaking will not be allowed.
Okay, I think the confusion was they talked about allowing overstaking, but also not allowing staking over than 10k.
Avatar
Actually, I might be wrong about overstaking not being allowed. The HIP says staking is unlimited, but above 10K provides no benefit. @evan @capcom is that the current plan?
Avatar
it's not currently possible
10:57
the txn checks for the exact amount and fails otherwise
👍 1
Avatar
Is there a month Helium is targeting to release mainnet for validators?
Avatar
sometime in Q2.
Avatar
Thank you
Avatar
Butchermando21 04/24/2021 10:50 AM
I am really confused about HIP25 and light node idea. As i understand all the approved hotspots (e.g NEBRA) will become light nodes that won't send PoC challenges if they are not in the validator group but will still be able to receive and participate in challenges from validators therefore will be still able to mine HNT. WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE ARE NO VALIDATORS NEARBY/REGION ?! Does that mean hotspots are going to be inactive and won't mine ??? According to https://docs.helium.com/mine-hnt/light-hotspots/ Kerlink is the first approved maker of light hotspots. Does that mean there is difference between Kerlink outdoor and Nebra outdoor ? 1) Will Nebra outdoor mine after HIP 25 (Validators) even though it's not mentioned that those are also approved for light hotspots... 2) If question number 1 answer is YES, then will it mine without validators nearby ? 3) Is Kerlink Outdoor eligible for mining before HIP 25 (Question arises from the fact that it is APPROVED LIGHT HOTSPOTS) IDK is it able to mine before HIP 25... 4) Kerlink Outdoor after HIP25 I think i expressed exact direction of my concerns. PLEASE help clarify this kind of things...
Avatar
Validators are practically unrelated to poc. Should answer your question
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Butchermando21
I am really confused about HIP25 and light node idea. As i understand all the approved hotspots (e.g NEBRA) will become light nodes that won't send PoC challenges if they are not in the validator group but will still be able to receive and participate in challenges from validators therefore will be still able to mine HNT. WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE ARE NO VALIDATORS NEARBY/REGION ?! Does that mean hotspots are going to be inactive and won't mine ??? According to https://docs.helium.com/mine-hnt/light-hotspots/ Kerlink is the first approved maker of light hotspots. Does that mean there is difference between Kerlink outdoor and Nebra outdoor ? 1) Will Nebra outdoor mine after HIP 25 (Validators) even though it's not mentioned that those are also approved for light hotspots... 2) If question number 1 answer is YES, then will it mine without validators nearby ? 3) Is Kerlink Outdoor eligible for mining before HIP 25 (Question arises from the fact that it is APPROVED LIGHT HOTSPOTS) IDK is it able to mine before HIP 25... 4) Kerlink Outdoor after HIP25 I think i expressed exact direction of my concerns. PLEASE help clarify this kind of things...
Validators and challenge creation is being completely decoupled from hotspots. All hotspots (including Nebra outdoor) will eventually become light hotspots that participate in PoC. Validators will run on server hardware and have nothing to do with being close in proximity to hotspots.
Avatar
Butchermando21 04/24/2021 11:00 AM
Does that mean validators won't affect mining (excluding Consesus group effect) ? And Kerlink will mine before HIP25?
Avatar
Avatar
Butchermando21
Does that mean validators won't affect mining (excluding Consesus group effect) ? And Kerlink will mine before HIP25?
Validators and poc are for the most part unrelated. Eventually some parts of poc will be the responsibility of validators, but from a user POV you won’t notice that
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Validators and poc are for the most part unrelated. Eventually some parts of poc will be the responsibility of validators, but from a user POV you won’t notice that
Butchermando21 04/24/2021 1:28 PM
Thanks!
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Validators and poc are for the most part unrelated. Eventually some parts of poc will be the responsibility of validators, but from a user POV you won’t notice that
Butchermando21 04/24/2021 1:43 PM
Does it affect witnesses ? or it's safe to say it only affects consesus group rewards ?
Avatar
Only CG rewards
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
capcom
Only CG rewards
also the relatively trivial rewards allocated to challenge creation, no?
Avatar
Avatar
GP
also the relatively trivial rewards allocated to challenge creation, no?
That has not been determined/discussed, and isn’t part of HIP25. It’s a separate step that comes after
👍 1
Avatar
Amole Tchew 04/26/2021 3:51 PM
What's the number/distribution of validators needed to insure censorship-proof network at the level of a nation-state attack? I see a lot of validators planning to host on Amazon or Azure. Not feeling tin-foil-hat about this and understand the challenges around scaling, but trying to understand tradeoffs.
Avatar
a nation-state level attack? I'm not sure that's an answerable question
Avatar
Avatar
evan
a nation-state level attack? I'm not sure that's an answerable question
Amole Tchew 04/26/2021 4:40 PM
Perhaps different phrasing. What would it take for a single entity to control the network, including what miners and/or devices could participate?
Avatar
there's some discussion of this in the hip, but I'm not sure there are tradeoffs?
16:53
16 tiny random machines vs. probably 50+ bigger machines in securer physical locations?
Avatar
Is this Validator return model still a good reference. or, is there another one?
Avatar
Hi folks, the website mentions Q2 2021 as the go-live date for validators on mainnet. Now that we're in Q2, is there a more granular estimate you can provide?
Avatar
Avatar
BigSkyTech
Is this Validator return model still a good reference. or, is there another one?
I personally have used it as a base to at least understand what changes could impact my returns. Use to your own liking. There are several factors that could change. Check with @usurper as well
19:11
I know he did some modifications as well
Avatar
Avatar
geophokus
I know he did some modifications as well
Sound good! Thanks
Avatar
You can just make a copy and change whatever you want in there
Avatar
Avatar
BigSkyTech
Is this Validator return model still a good reference. or, is there another one?
This is not a good reference. First, it has a start date of April 2020, which is 12 months ago. Significant when there's a halving this August.
👍 1
Avatar
That's easy to change. Just make a copy. 👍
Avatar
Ramp Validators Regarding HIP 25,https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/master/0025-validators.md,Copied and Modified from @geophokus on Discord. All mistakes by @usurper. Purpose,Model Validator reward and percentage yield ...
19:15
I have some additions such as validator ramp-up, missed CG times, and some other return based calculations.
19:15
Feel free to copy this spreadsheet and change. I put descriptions in all fields and if you have any questions let me know.
Avatar
Sounds good thanks. Any ideas on Validator count at launch. One service is representing 79 queued up? (edited)
Avatar
Also all of these models are obviously about the return of HNT on HNT. These have nothing to do with the HNT/USD price. That's a completely different thing. This just says if I have 10k HNT to stake, then here's how much HNT I can earn.
Avatar
Avatar
BigSkyTech
Sounds good thanks. Any ideas on Validator count at launch. One service is representing 79 queued up? (edited)
That is the Million Dollar Question.
😅 1
Avatar
I’m betting exchanges like KuKoin are going to latch onto it.
Avatar
My guess. Aragon has 90-100. Patrium on their website shows 75. Figure another 15-25 before launch. There's 250 in testnet, but I think 1/2 of those are trying it out without the funds. My guess is 350-400 at launch. But who knows.
19:19
Exactly. If Exodus decides they want to stake HNT with Everstake, or Binance or Coinbase or whatever, then all bets are off.
Avatar
Right
Avatar
At 6%, I don't see the financial viability beyond 750 validators, but who knows.
19:20
At least in this model with this structure today. We'll see.
19:21
In the end, I believe in Helium, this team and this market. So let's collectively make some shit happen.
💯 3
Avatar
Avatar
usurper
At least in this model with this structure today. We'll see.
It looks like 3000 validators will each get 6% APY in HNT after halvening. (edited)
Avatar
No way.
Avatar
Did you look at the pinned chart?
10:44
Chart is pre halvening
Avatar
Ramp Validators Regarding HIP 25,https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/master/0025-validators.md,Copied and Modified from @geophokus on Discord. All mistakes by @usurper. Purpose,Model Validator reward and percentage yield ...
Avatar
Sheet1 # of validators,total staked,HNT earned / mo / validator,HNT earned / yr / validator,validator annualized return 10,100,000,30,000,360,000,3600% 20,200,000,15,000,180,000,1800% 30,300,000,10,000,120,000,1200% 40,400,000,7,500,90,000,900% 50,500,000,6,000,72,000,720% 60,600,000,5,000,60,00...
Avatar
@usurper I'm not sure I understand the CG multiplier column
Avatar
Avatar
evan
@usurper I'm not sure I understand the CG multiplier column
Up for debate. 6% is only attainable if every CG is exactly on time, getting in 17,520 CGs in a year. But if, let's say, only 90% of CGs actually hit 30 minutes, then there are less CGs in a year, and therefore a reduced HNT awarded.
10:48
When we had longer delays early in testnet, I added a factor to be able to put a little more realism. Maybe at go-live that factor is 1.0.
10:48
This just states if 90% of CGs are 30 minutes, the remaining are an hour, then only 95% of the possible HNT in a calendar year is rewarded. (edited)
Avatar
fair enough
Avatar
Just changed the model for a 5/1 start.
Avatar
Avatar
usurper
When we had longer delays early in testnet, I added a factor to be able to put a little more realism. Maybe at go-live that factor is 1.0.
Important in this is that historicallly CGs take longer than 30min and we expect this to continue a bit in the future (hip-28 is a proposal to try to account for actual vs predicted CG times)
Avatar
Avatar
krby
Important in this is that historicallly CGs take longer than 30min and we expect this to continue a bit in the future (hip-28 is a proposal to try to account for actual vs predicted CG times)
Right. I think that's a good HIP. I know the goal of this whole endeavor is getting closer to 30 minutes, and these latest chains in testnet show that it's going to happen.
Avatar
It just assumes 6% of the set total rewards split among validators equally without costs.
Avatar
You're right. I shouldn't have said it's not accurate. It's accurate, but doesn't take into account halving, costs. But "6 12%" isn't accurate as there's only 3 months left of that reward. (edited)
Avatar
Right. On the chart, 3000 validators will earn 6% instead of listed 12% gross. (edited)
Avatar
In this model, ramping up to 1000 validators, 100% return will be 6-7 years out. And it's pretty slim out at the end there.
Avatar
Avatar
usurper
Up for debate. 6% is only attainable if every CG is exactly on time, getting in 17,520 CGs in a year. But if, let's say, only 90% of CGs actually hit 30 minutes, then there are less CGs in a year, and therefore a reduced HNT awarded.
At least until HIP 28 or something similar is adopted 🙂
Avatar
Hey I´m new here. What is this hip25 about? Can people connect other LORAWAN Gateways?
Avatar
Avatar
Cramses
Hey I´m new here. What is this hip25 about? Can people connect other LORAWAN Gateways?
It's about moving concensus groups off of hotspots and on to separate servers called validators. Start with reading the link in the title of the channel: HIP: https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/master/0025-validators.md Then maybe look at the pinned messages for things folks have thought worth saving for others.
Helium Improvement Proposals. Contribute to helium/HIP development by creating an account on GitHub.
Avatar
Hey team - will there be a transparent web interface to see how much each validator earns?
Avatar
Avatar
Xilefblank
Hey team - will there be a transparent web interface to see how much each validator earns?
The current and most recent hotspots that have been elected to be part of a consensus group
Avatar
has there been any consideration to lowering the minimum staking quantity with the recent surge in HNT valuation? Last I checked, the minimum would require >$150k equivalent valuation. (edited)
😆 1
👍 2
Avatar
Yeah I guess compared to other blockchains this is a very high minimum which prevents me and many others like me to contribute by running validators
Avatar
Avatar
chaseadam
has there been any consideration to lowering the minimum staking quantity with the recent surge in HNT valuation? Last I checked, the minimum would require >$150k equivalent valuation. (edited)
Yes, it gets brough up every week or so. Check the history in this channel for previous discussions about it.
👍 2
Avatar
perfectmoney 05/01/2021 12:35 PM
Sorry, I did some research, but didn't find the answer, when does hip-25 start?
12:35
We want to make sure we are ready.
Avatar
Sometime in Q2 is the goal.
Avatar
perfectmoney 05/01/2021 12:40 PM
Ok thanks!
12:40
There's still time then.
Avatar
As we approach readiness as a network, there will be more announcements. It won’t be a surprise for anyone. The best way to be prepared is to participate in the testnet and get used to the ergonomics.
Avatar
perfectmoney 05/01/2021 12:42 PM
Is there any way to see how many vidators are on the test net?
12:42
Ok, will do
Avatar
Avatar
perfectmoney
Is there any way to see how many vidators are on the test net?
The current and most recent hotspots that have been elected to be part of a consensus group
Avatar
motion to move this to HIP Archive since approved. future discussion can go in #testnet-ops
Avatar
Avatar
jamiedubs
motion to move this to HIP Archive since approved. future discussion can go in #testnet-ops
I think there's still space for a "talk about validators that is not about the technical aspects of running a validator node". The current #testnet-ops channel is pretty focused on the technical aspects of getting one up and running, monitoring it, etc. Rather than discussions around slashing, staking amounts, the cooldown, options for all these things, etc.
11:46
Maybe that's less important as testnet winds down and moves to mainnet? Dunno. But right now, having a dedicated technical channel about testnet is useful, I think.
Avatar
ok, good enough for me
12:11
i'm not convinced folks know the difference (beyond fellow users pointing one direction vs the other) but so be it 🙂
Avatar
Heh. For a while, a few of us were actively pointing people here for things that weren't about getting running and debugging on testnet. Things like: "Has anyone thought about loweing the staking amount?" 😉
Avatar
it seems like it might be cleaner to have a validator-economics channel for that type of discussion
👍 1
Avatar
Yup, it does seem weird to have this hip channel out there for an approved and (nearly) implemented hip. Maybe ask professor or evan (intentionally not tagging them) what they think? It was useful to them I think to have a technical debugging channel early on.
Avatar
or have it in the token economics channel?
Avatar
I like @Tushar 's suggestions. (edited)
Avatar
OK let's do it
14:21
This HIP was approved and code work is nearing completion over the next few months. To follow development and testnet, please use #testnet-ops – for discussion of economics, please use #token-economics
Avatar
.
Exported 7,564 message(s)